Given that, regardless of where legislation stands, the EPA has been given unprecedented power and we are therefore under constant threat of Cap & Trade, I thought it was time to take a look at one of this administrations front runners for that agenda.
Meet Carol Browner who’s official title seems to be “Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change.” I was not able to find an official Bio for her on WhiteHouse.gov, but did finally turn up an office description:
White House Office of Energy and Climate Change
The Office of Energy and Climate Change is a newly-created office within The Executive Office of the President that works to support President Obama’s agenda on energy and climate change. The Office of Energy and Climate Change coordinates and works closely with a host of government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, the Department of the Interior, and others. In addition, the Office of Energy and Climate Change works closely with a broad array of stakeholders to identify new opportunities to create green jobs and transition to a new clean energy economy.
In other words, the whole point of this office and position is to “transition” to green energy. Not green energy promotion or development, but green energy takeover. Let’s see what we can dig up on Mrs. Browner.
In this video, posted December 1st 2008, Mrs Browner makes quite a statement:
At 3:20 Joseph Romm: “She is on the Board of The Center for American Progress and has played a key role in shaping this organization reminding us always that the environment and Global Warming are first tier issues. She’s the key reason the center has been a leader on issues of clean energy and green recovery.”
At 4:12 Carol Browner: “As Joe mentioned, I am on the Board and have been on the Board of the Center for American Progress since it’s conception”
The Center for American Progress is a George Soros funded Left Wing Progressive Think Tank which has been behind many of the policies and staff choices of the Obama Administration. Although their website removed Carol Browner from their list of Staff & Fellows, She does still have a Bio there which states, “She is on the Board of the Directors of the Center for American Progress.”
Carol M. Browner was born in December 1955 in Miami, Florida. Both her parents were professors at Miami Dade Community College. In 1977 Browner received a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of Florida, and two years later she earned a J.D. degree from the University of Florida College of Law.
In 1980 and 1981, Browner was General Counsel for the Florida House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations. In 1983 she became associate director of the Ralph Nader-founded group Citizen Action in Washington, DC.
From 1986 to 1988, Browner served as chief legislative assistant to Democrat Senator Lawton Chiles of Florida; in this position, she worked to ban offshore oil-drilling near the Florida Keys. In 1989 she became legal counsel for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
From 1988 to 1991, Browner was Legislative Director for Senator Al Gore. From 1991-93, she was Florida’s Secretary of Environmental Regulation.
After the 1992 presidential election, Browner served as transition director for Vice President-elect Gore. In December 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton named Browner as his choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); she was confirmed by the Senate on January 21, 1993.
In 1995Browner used her position at the EPA to lobby more than 100 grassroots environmental groups to oppose the Republican-led Congress, faxing out documents condemning the GOP’s regulatory initiatives. In a rare show of political unity, Republicans and Democrats alike impugned Browner, accusing her of violating the Anti-Lobbying Act. A stinging letter to Browner from a bipartisan subcommittee of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee stated: “The concerted EPA actions appear to fit the definition of prohibited grass-roots lobbying … The prima facie case is strong that some EPA officials may have violated the criminal law.”
Browner headed the EPA throughout both terms of the Clinton presidency, making her the longest-serving Administrator in the agency’s history.
Bestselling author and political analyst Michelle Malkin reports that Browner, on her final day as Clinton EPA chief in 2001, ordered a computer technician to delete all her computer files, in direct violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve those files. When questioned about her actions, Browner claimed that her computer had contained no work-related material, and that she had merely purged the hard drive of such innocuous items as computer games — as a courtesy to incoming staffers of the Bush administration.
It was later learned that three additional high-ranking EPA officials had also violated the court order and erased their hard drives. Because of this, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth held the EPA in contempt of court.
According to Manhattan Institute scholar Max Schulz, Browner “was the driving force behind the federal government’s effort to force General Electric Co. to spend $490 million to dredge New York’s Hudson River to rid it of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that — because they were buried under layers of silt — posed no environmental harm.” Some of Browner’s employees ultimately faced criminal charges for falsifying evidence and tampering with lab results.
After her EPA tenure, Browner became a founding member of the Albright Group, a “global strategy” organization headed by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
In 2006 Browner and her husband, Tom Downey, lobbied on behalf of Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirate-owned company, in its quest to take operational control of six major U.S. ports. They met with New York Senator Charles Schumer in an effort to minimize congressional opposition to the deal. Ultimately the deal fell apart.
Browner also served as a “commissioner” of the Socialist International (SI), the umbrella group for 170 “social democratic, socialist and labor parties” in 55 countries. SI’s “organizing document” cites capitalism as the cause of “devastating crises,” “mass unemployment,” “imperialist expansion,” and “colonial exploitation” worldwide. Browner worked on SI’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which contends that “the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Browner, who has said that global warming is “the greatest challenge ever faced,” calls herself a “strong backer” of “utility decoupling.” Under “decoupling” policies, utility companies will be required to provide less energy, while the government guarantees the companies steady or increased profits through “taxpayer subsidies” and “voluntary” conservation measures.As author Kathy Shaidle puts it:
“In other words, taxpayers will be given grim Carter-era exhortations to put on sweaters rather than turn up the thermostat and be forced to pick up the tab for utility companies’ reduced earnings, while getting less energy in return.”
From December 2003 to January 2009, Browner served as Chair of the National Audubon Society. She is currently a Board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection (an organization founded by Al Gore in 2006); APX, Inc. (which specialzes in environmental commodities markets); the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress; and the League of Conservation Voters.
On January 22, 2009, President Obama named Browner as his choice for the post of Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, popularly known as “Environment Czar.”
In her book Culture of Corruption, Michelle Malkin writes:
“By February 2009, [Browner] had already announced radical plans to declare carbon-dioxide emissions a danger to the public — a move that could potentially subject not just power and chemical plants, refineries, and vehicles, but also schools, hospitals, and any other emitters of carbon dioxide to costly new regulations and litigation.
So from her positions and previous actions I have reached the following conclusion, Carol Browner, a Socialist, feels she is above the law. She will do whatever it takes, the ends justify the means, to accomplish the goal of stopping all conventional forms of energy and forcing green options on the American people, all in the name of Climate Change.
Mrs Browner was very involved with the BP Oil Spill incident on behalf of the Obama Administration. It is because of what her involvement was during this disaster that I cannot call her an “Environment Czar”, the environment was neglected throughout the incident.
“No one in the administration will rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people of this region are able to get back to their lives and livelihoods.”
But we all know this was not the case. Obama rested, while Carol Browner and the rest of the Administration looked for ways to exploit the incident. No one focused on adequate cleanup, no one focused on environmental stewardship, no one focused on containment. Here she is talking about disaster plans and dispersants.
She walks right over Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s requests for environmental protection measures without pause, but claims they are looking into it.
And then the Corexit question, a complete spin job that dispersants are helpful.
Instead of pushing for all available resources being sent to the Gulf and conducting round the clock cleanup operations, Carol Browner was behind the Oil Drilling Moriatorium:
The environment was not adequately protected. The ends justify the means?
She is also a big pusher of Carbon Capture, Carbon Trading, and enforcing Auto Emissions. It is her involvement in the fuel standards/auto emissions policy making that prompted the organization, Judicial Watch to sue for records:
In February, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to obtain documents related to Ms. Browner (who holds the official title of Special Assistant on Energy and Climate) and her role in crafting official U.S. climate policy. Ms. Browner, who was never subjected to Senate confirmation, reportedly served as the Obama administration’s point person in secret negotiations to establish automobile emission standards in California and also participated in negotiations involving cap and trade legislation.
Through our FOIA request filed on December 28, 2009, we’re specifically seeking all records of communications, contacts, or correspondence between Browner and the Energy Department or the EPA concerning:
A. Negotiations and/or discussions among the auto industry, the State of California, and agencies of the United States with respect to fuel-standards/auto emissions for the time period between January 20, 2009, and June 1, 2009; and
B. Negotiations/discussions with respect to cap and trade legislation for the time period between June 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009.
The EPA has failed to respond to these requests in any manner. Subsequent to filing its lawsuit on February 18, Judicial Watch received a letter from the Energy Department (dated February 17) in which the agency denied that it even had any documents responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests. (I’m not sure I believe that!)
According to press reports, Ms. Browner instructed individuals involved in auto emissions negotiations to “put nothing in writing, ever.” The New York Times reported that Browner made every effort to “keep their discussions as quiet as possible.”
And here’s something else to make you nervous about Browner.
Her involvement in these important discussions is particularly troubling given her documented ties to the radical socialist organization Socialist International, which reportedly calls for “global governance” and advocates that wealthier nations should shrink their economies in order to address the climate change “crisis.”
According to Fox News, Browner’s name was “scrubbed” from the organization’s website once she became linked to the Obama administration, but evidence of her involvement (including a photo of Browner speaking to the group’s congress in Greece) remained.
So, here we have an unconfirmed Obama administration official conducting secret meetings and instructing participants to avoid producing a written record. This is the perfect storm of corruption: concentrated executive power with no congressional oversight and no transparency. And this stonewalling on the “Climate Czar” documents adds yet another chapter in the growing Climategate scandal.
Here again, just like the illegal deletion of records under the Clinton Administration, we can see how far this woman will go to hide the evidence of her radical moves, in the furtherance of her radical agenda. Don’t keep records, delete them, hide them, shred them, shhhh.
Clean Energy Leadership from the White House to Main Street
Last year we made the largest investment in the clean energy economy in our nation’s history, which is expected to create more than 700,000 jobs by the end of 2012. These are jobs not just in providing the parts and technology to create power from the wind or fuels from the land, but in manufacturing solar panels, in building the wires and mechanics behind our smart meters, in creating next generation batteries – the list goes on.
Other nations realize that the country that leads the clean energy economy will be the country that leads the 21st century global economy. The President is dedicated to making the United States that country – and is inspired by the small towns across rural America that provide the backbone for this effort. Towns like Macon and Fort Madison can be models around this country, and I’m confident one day we’ll look back to these places as some of the engines of this new clean energy future.
As extraordinary the work that towns like Macon and Fort Madison are doing, these plants can’t solve all our energy challenges alone. But their work is a key part of a comprehensive strategy to move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the President knows we can come together on this issue and pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation that will spur a new generation of clean energy industries, create good American jobs, and enhance our energy security.
I find the 700,000 job’s goal laughable because Mrs. Browner refuses to take into account the number of jobs her very intitiative seeks to destroy. The blog also shows that Mrs Browner is dedicated to this goal, no matter the price tag. And all her previous actions show she will carry it out, no matter the jobs lost, no matter the cost.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
Ladies and gentlemen, liberty is under attack – an attack that the Obama Administration has put into overdrive. It did not begin with Obama, but hopefully – come November – we can turn it around and alter our government to get it back in tune with our “unalienable Rights.” I am going to list several of these attacks, many of which are carefully disguised in Cass Sunstein’s favorite term, “Nudges.”
First lets take a look through some Executive Orders so we can analyze it straight from the top. One thing you’ll notice is that Big Government is key. Anytime he wants an area to be taken over by Big Government he forms a committee or new government office.
These are just a few of the agencies and commitees Obama has created with more to come. What you can clearly see here is the pattern of the Obama’s Administration, to take over every aspect of American life from your city to your gender.
Executive Order–President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to recognize that good nutrition goes hand in hand with fitness and sports participation, Executive Order 13265 of June 6, 2002, is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1. The title is revised to read as follows: “President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.”
Sec. 2. Sections 1 through 5 are revised to read as follows:
“Section 1. Purpose. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), in carrying out the Secretary’s responsibilities for public health and human services, shall develop and coordinate a national program to enhance physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Through this program, the Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Education, seek to:
(a) expand national interest in and awareness of the benefits of regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(b) stimulate and enhance coordination of programs within and among the private and public sectors that promote physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition;
(c) expand availability of quality information and guidance regarding physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition; and
(d) target all Americans, with particular emphasis on children and adolescents, as well as populations or communities in which specific risks or disparities in participation in, access to, or knowledge about the benefits of physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition have been identified.
In implementing this order, the Secretary shall be guided by the science-based Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Additionally, the Secretary shall undertake nutrition related activities under this order in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture.
Sec. 2. The President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition. (a) There is hereby established the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition (Council).
(b) The Council shall be composed of up to 25 members appointed by the President. Members shall serve for a term of 2 years, shall be eligible for reappointment, and may continue to serve after the expiration of their terms until the appointment of a successor. The President may designate one or more members as Chair or Vice Chair.
Sec. 3. Functions of the Council. (a) The Council shall advise the President, through the Secretary, concerning progress made in carrying out the provisions of this order and shall recommend to the President, through the Secretary, actions to accelerate progress.
(b) The Council shall advise the Secretary on ways to promote regular physical activity, fitness, sports participation, and good nutrition. Recommendations may address, but are not necessarily limited to, public awareness campaigns; Federal, State, and local physical activity; fitness, sports participation, and nutrition initiatives; and partnership opportunities between public- and private-sector health-promotion entities.
(c) The Council shall function as a liaison to relevant State, local, and private entities in order to advise the Secretary regarding opportunities to extend and improve physical activity, fitness, sports, and nutrition programs and services at the local, State, and national levels.
(d) The Council shall monitor the need to enhance programs and educational and promotional materials sponsored, overseen, or disseminated by the Council, and shall advise the Secretary as necessary concerning such need.
In performing its functions, the Council shall take into account the Federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Your fat, lazy, and too stupid to realize it, therefore Obama has formed this Council to rescue and make sure your choices are restricted to healthy choices. Will it be through propaganda campaigns, or selective taxes perhaps, maybe even the banning of certain foods because you little people just can’t control yourself. How do you think they will “target” all Americans for getting active in sports?
Executive Order– Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).
Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties. The Council shall:
(a) provide coordination and leadership at the Federal level, and among all executive departments and agencies, with respect to prevention, wellness, and health promotion practices, the public health system, and integrative health care in the United States;
(b) develop, after obtaining input from relevant stakeholders, a national prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care strategy that incorporates the most effective and achievable means of improving the health status of Americans and reducing the incidence of preventable illness and disability in the United States, as further described in section 5 of this order;
(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;
(d) consider and propose evidence-based models, policies, and innovative approaches for the promotion of transformative models of prevention, integrative health, and public health on individual and community levels across the United States;
(e) establish processes for continual public input, including input from State, regional, and local leadership communities and other relevant stakeholders, including Indian tribes and tribal organizations;
(f) submit the reports required by section 6 of this order; and
(g) carry out such other activities as are determined appropriate by the President.
Sec. 4. Advisory Group.
(a) There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services an Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (Advisory Group), which shall report to the Chair of the Council.
(b) The Advisory Group shall be composed of not more than 25 members or representatives from outside the Federal Government appointed by the President and shall include a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who are representative of or have expertise in:
(1) worksite health promotion;
(2) community services, including community health centers;
(3) preventive medicine;
(4) health coaching;
(5) public health education;
(6) geriatrics; and
(7) rehabilitation medicine.
(c) The Advisory Group shall develop policy and program recommendations and advise the Council on lifestyle-based chronic disease prevention and management, integrative health care practices, and health promotion.
Sec. 5. National Prevention and Health Promotion Strategy. Not later than March 23, 2011, the Chair, in consultation with the Council, shall develop and make public a national prevention, health promotion, and public health strategy (national strategy), and shall review and revise it periodically. The national strategy shall:
(a) set specific goals and objectives for improving the health of the United States through federally supported prevention, health promotion, and public health programs, consistent with ongoing goal setting efforts conducted by specific agencies;
(b) establish specific and measurable actions and timelines to carry out the strategy, and determine accountability for meeting those timelines, within and across Federal departments and agencies; and
(c) make recommendations to improve Federal efforts relating to prevention, health promotion, public health, and integrative health-care practices to ensure that Federal efforts are consistent with available standards and evidence.
Sec. 6. Reports. Not later than July 1, 2010, and annually thereafter until January 1, 2015, the Council shall submit to the President and the relevant committees of the Congress, a report that:
(a) describes the activities and efforts on prevention, health promotion, and public health and activities to develop the national strategy conducted by the Council during the period for which the report is prepared;
(b) describes the national progress in meeting specific prevention, health promotion, and public health goals defined in the national strategy and further describes corrective actions recommended by the Council and actions taken by relevant agencies and organizations to meet these goals;
(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(d) contains specific science-based initiatives to achieve the measurable goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services regarding nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation, and targeting the five leading disease killers in the United States;
(e) contains specific plans for consolidating Federal health programs and centers that exist to promote healthy behavior and reduce disease risk (including eliminating programs and offices determined to be ineffective in meeting the priority goals of the Healthy People 2020 program of the Department of Health and Human Services);
(f) contains specific plans to ensure that all Federal health-care programs are fully coordinated with science-based prevention recommendations by the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
(g) contains specific plans to ensure that all prevention programs outside the Department of Health and Human Services are based on the science-based guidelines developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention under subsection (d) of this section.
So here you have an Advisory Group looking for ways to, not only make you fat, lazy Americans exercise and eat right, but also stop killing yourselves. Your lifestyle is self destructive so we are going to come up with ways to make you stop smoking, make you stop giving yourselves heart attacks (attack on hamburgers? salt? trans fat? any number of foods). The Nanny state will decide how to remove your options either through propaganda and advertising, over taxation, or outright banning.
With cigarettes the attacks have not only been over taxation and demonization, but also restricting locations where you can exercise this liberty. It’s gone so far now that New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg, according to CBS News, “Is looking at a possible smoking ban for all city parks and public beaches.” You would no longer have that liberty in those outdoor locations at all or face criminal charges.
Now some pending Bills. Do you want to serve your country in a way the Government decides? Maybe, Well if this Bill passses you don’t have a choice:
a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.
That’s right, you will be required to serve, regardless of your wishes. That’s not freedom, it’s tyranny.
Also we have the Livable Communities Bill where instead of city & state planning locally, Washington will decide for you. From CNS News:
Republicans Blast ‘Livable Communities’ Bill As Washington-Based Central Planning for Cities and Towns
The Senate Banking Committee passed the Livable Communities Act on Tuesday, moving the bill one step closer to final passage. The bill creates $4 billion in neighborhood planning grants for “sustainable” living projects and a new federal office to oversee them.
Similar legislation in the House has been criticized by Republicans on the House Budget Committee, who charge that “the program’s aim is to impose a Washington-based, central planning model on localities across the country.”
In the Senate version, written by outgoing Chairman Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), the Livable Communities Act would designate $4 billion to aid local governments in planning high-density, walkable neighborhoods.
Premised on helping local governments to combat suburban sprawl and traffic congestion, the bill sets up two separate grant programs. One, known as Comprehensive Planning Grants, would go to cities and counties to assist them in carrying out such plans as the following:
— “(1) coordinate land use, housing, transportation, and infrastructure planning processes across jurisdictions and agencies” and
— “(3) conduct or update housing, infrastructure, transportation, energy, and environmental assessments to determine regional needs and promote sustainable development; [and]
— “… (5) implement local zoning and other code changes necessary to implement a comprehensive regional plan and promote sustainable development.”
The second grant type – Sustainability Challenge Grants – funds local efforts to:
–“(1) promote integrated transportation, housing, energy, and economic development activities carried out across policy and governmental jurisdictions;
— (2) promote sustainable and location-efficient development; and
— (3) implement projects identified in a comprehensive regional plan.”
To administer and regulate these new grants, the bill creates the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities (OSHC) within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The legislation is designed to prod local communities toward high-density, public transit-oriented neighborhoods that concentrate large numbers of people into small geographic areas connected by train and bus networks.
These high-density neighborhoods would be combined with high-density commercial districts that – in theory – would reduce the need for daily driving and commuting.
In describing the Livable Communities Act, Dodd has said that “with sustainable development, our communities will cut traffic congestion; reduce greenhouse gas emissions and gasoline consumption; protect rural areas and green spaces; revitalize existing Main Streets and urban centers; and create more affordable housing.
”So what is this Bill really? An attempt for Washington to take control of local cities & towns and redesign in their Utopian green image. You will not have a say in how your city develops, that’s Washington’s job. They are going to phase out Liberties, force green options, and mass transit. You don’t need a car for yourself, here’s a train.
How about Free Speech? Still have it? That depends doesn’t it. Say you want to write a blog and express your views, sure you can do it, but not in Philadelphia unless you can afford it. Philadelphia has now decided to try and force all Blogs to purchase a $300 business license. From the Philadelphia City Paper:
For the past three years, Marilyn Bess has operated MS Philly Organic, a small, low-traffic blog that features occasional posts about green living, out of her Manayunk home. Between her blog and infrequent contributions to ehow.com, over the last few years she says she’s made about $50.
To Bess, her website is a hobby. To the city of Philadelphia, it’s a potential moneymaker, and the city wants its cut. In May, the city sent Bess a letter demanding that she pay $300, the price of a business privilege license.
She’s not alone. After dutifully reporting even the smallest profits on their tax filings this year, a number — though no one knows exactly what that number is — of Philadelphia bloggers were dispatched letters informing them that they owe $300 for a privilege license, plus taxes on any profits they made.
Even if, as with Sean Barry(Another Blogger), that profit is $11 over two years. The city wants some people to pay more in taxes than they earn. “I definitely don’t want to see people paying more in taxes and fees than what [we] earn,” says Bess.
So how do you silence Free Speech? You make it expensive. How many times has Obama attacked bloggers and talk radio? Looks like Philadelphia took the hint and found a solution.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Free Speech for companies as well as individuals. However this ruling did not sit well with Obama at all. All the ruling does is permit companies to advertise for any political candidate they choose, but Obama can’t allow that. He demonized the Supreme Court for this ruling at his State of the Union Address and has been against ever since as you can see in this Weekly Address:
He is warning of “A corporate takeover of our Democracy” yet that is not the case. First of all the United States of America is a Constitutional Meritocratic Republic, not a Democracy. Second, An increase in candidate advertising cannot cause a takeover. Does not an individual have the presence of mind to watch political ads and look into it or decide for themselves? Not in Obama’s Nanny State. On a side not though, everything Obama and the Democratic Party have planned to counter this type of “Free Speech” exempts unions from running campaign ads. Way to double standard.
Do you have Free Speech on the internet? Quite possibly not for long. Though all previous Obama Administration power grabs to seize control of the internet have failed, the Net Neutrality effort is still ongoing, even though their coalition is weakening. From Hot Air:
The coalition pushing Congress to enact Net Neutrality legislation lost one of its key players after Red State questioned its judgment in selecting political bedfellows. Gun Owners of America announced their withdrawal from Save the Internet after it became clear that the group had strong ties to MoveOn, SEIU, and ACORN, among others. STI had bragged about GOA’s membership as a way to paint their coalition as broad based:
A bipartisan coalition in favor of net neutrality has lost a key conservative supporter amid signs that the issue is becoming divisive.
The Gun Owners of America (GOA) severed ties with the net-neutrality coalition Save the Internet after a conservative blog questioned the association with liberal organizations such as ACORN and the ACLU.
The blog RedState described Save The Internet as a “neo-Marxist Robert McChesney-FreePress/Save the Internet think tank” and questioned why GOA would participate in a coalition that includes liberal groups such as the ACLU, MoveOn.Org, SEIU, CREDO and ACORN.
Why now? GOA claims that the times have changed, and that the Net Neutrality movement has changed over the last four years:
“Back in 2006 we supported net neutrality, as we had been concerned that AOL and others might continue to block pro-second amendment issues,” said Erich Pratt, communications director for GOA.
“The issue has now become one of government control of the Internet, and we are 100 percent opposed to that,” Pratt said.
Er, what? The Net Neutrality movement has never been a grassroots effort aimed solely at private enterprise. It has always aimed at government intervention and regulation of Internet access and network management. That was as true in 2006 as it is today.
Arguably, the issue is free speech, but the problem with that is that NN advocates want government-imposed neutrality on content delivery, which makes sense for a monopoly — but the Internet isn’t a monopoly. (STI still has Parents Television Council and the Christian Coalition inside the tent, at least for now, two groups not known for their opposition to government intervention in speech.) The NN argument treats the Internet as a public utility, an argument that FCC chair Julius Genachowski explicitly made this year, but it’s not, and it’s not even close. Consumers can choose between several different providers, and content handling certainly can inform those choices.
So do you want the Federal Government to regulate the internet? I do not. I want freedom to choose for myself what content I view. But the Left Wing Net Neutrality coalition marches on pushing for government control and less freedom.
How about the Right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment? Even after the landmark case McDonald V. Chicago, The 2nd amendment continues to be under attack. Instead of dropping Chicago’s handgun ban (which never reduced crime, but encouraged it, in my opinion), Mayor Daley has chosen to repeal the ban but add many hoops to jump through before you can own a gun. From the Christian Science Monitor:
Chicago to allow handgun ownership under revised gun law
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley is asking the City Council to enact a revised handgun ordinance in the wake of Monday’s ruling by the US Supreme Court that jeopardized the city’s 28-year-old ban on handguns.
The mayor says the revised ordinance will stand up in federal court, should it face a challenge. Early reaction from gun rights advocates is that they are relatively pleased with Chicago’s latest proposal for regulating handgun ownership within city limits, with some caveats.
The Chicago handgun ban, the last of its kind in the nation, fell into a legal danger zone this week, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to every jurisdiction in the US. The ban now faces a review by the Seventh US Circuit Court that will test its validity in light of the high court’s decision, but legal experts, and Mayor Daley himself, expect that the ban cannot stand.
Daley wants the City Council “to move quickly to consider and enact” the redrafted ordinance, he told reporters Thursday. The council is expected to meet Friday to debate the measure and take a vote.
Gun rights advocates are “cautiously optimistic” about the proposal, says Alan Gura, a lawyer in Alexandria, Va., who was on the winning side in the latest Supreme Court case and in a 2008 case the resulted in the overturning of a handgun ban in Washington, D.C.
“This is a far more measured and careful response than what was rumored, and we appreciate that,” says Mr. Gura.
New rules of gun ownership
The new ordinance would establish a multitier process requiring gun owners to register their firearms with the Chicago Police Department, attend classroom and firing range training, and obtain both a special city permit and a state firearms identification card.
The fees associated with those requirements are not inconsequential, says Gura. The city permit, for instance, would cost $100 and would require renewal every three years. Each handgun would need to be reregistered every year at $15 each. Penalties for failing to register a firearm could cost owners up to $10,000 and jail time.
It is normal to charge fees for registering guns, says Gura. But “when fees are imposed on a recurring basis, then it becomes an annual tax on an exercise of a constitutional right,” he says. “We don’t think that’s appropriate, so that can be a sticking point with us.”
Rifle owners have long complained about Chicago’s annual registration process, which can take up to six months each year.
“It can take so long … no one can get through all the hoops,” says Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. Mr. Pearson says he is tracking what form of the ordinance the Chicago City Council approves on Friday, to determine if it needs to be challenged.
“I’m glad we’re seeing some movement on it. We’ll have to test the constitutionality of [what they] are proposing later,” he says.
A ban on gun shops questioned
The proposed ordinance also prohibits assault weapons and gun shops. Gura considers the latter ban “extreme” and says it is no different than if the government decided it wanted to ban the sale of books it determined were not in its favor.
“To say there can be no commerce in something that is explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution is troubling,” he says.
Daley says all aspects of the ban are constitutionally sound because they focus on gun ownership in the home, which is what the high court declared to be protected by the Second Amendment. Guns are “for self-defense and self-defense only,” he added, and if people were really committed to gun safety, they would start by not owning guns.
“Although people have a constitutional right to have a handgun in their home … the best way to avoid firearm-related injuries and deaths is to not have a gun in the home in the first place,” he says.
So, you can have a gun, but we will determine what kind and only if you can afford our massive fees. Oh, you can’t afford it? Oh well, sorry no gun for you but hey, at least we gave you the opportunity, even though we forbid them to be sold here.
How about Washington D.C. where a preacher was arrested for answering a security guards question about weapons, saying yes, he had two pistols under his seat. From Johnson City Press:
Pistol-packing preacher protests arrest; DC police confiscate guns
For the rest of his life Pastor William Duncan of Caldwell Springs Baptist Church will remember the Fourth of July as the day he lost his freedom.
“I learned our freedoms can be taken away in a heartbeat,” the 64-year-old Duncan said of the ordeal he encountered in Washington, D.C., when he was arrested in front of his shocked family and forced to spend last month’s Fourth of July weekend in the city’s jails.
The nightmare for the entire Duncan Family began with a trip to the nation’s capital to celebrate Independence Day and enjoy the spectacular fireworks show on the Mall.
Duncan had been to Washington a few times in the past but his wife, Carolyn, had never been there. Accompanying them were their daughter, son-in-law and his 4-year-old granddaughter and 9-month-old grandson. Duncan’s daughter is a police officer, and her husband is a federal agent.
The family’s ordeal began when they reached the hotel’s parking garage, which is shared with a Federal Emergency Management Agency building. A security guard at the parking garage entrance asked if Duncan had any weapons. Duncan said he carried two Smith and Wesson pistols under his seat.
Unaware that his Tennessee handgun carry permit was not valid in the District of Columbia, Duncan was surprised when police were called. He was even more surprised by the belligerent attitude of the officer in charge. Surprise became shock when federal agents and a Special Weapons and Tactics team arrived. The street in front of the hotel was blocked off.
“It looked like the middle of New York City and they had just arrested Osama bin Laden,” Duncan said.
Duncan’s federal agent son-in-law attempted to help him. He identified himself and explained the family was in town to celebrate Independence Day and that Duncan was a Baptist preacher and not a terrorist.
Soon the federal officers were satisfied there was no threat and left. The hotel security people said they did not have a problem and offered to store Duncan’s guns in the hotel safe during his stay.Most of the police also seemed satisfied that Duncan was not a threat. The one exception was the officer in charge.
“You know what you have done, you will have to go to jail,” the officer told him.
At the police station, the officer grilled Duncan about the reason for carrying two big guns.
“I told them I have arthritis and two bad shoulders. If someone attacked my family there was no other way I could protect them,” Duncan said.
The officer said he did not think it was likely anyone would attack him or his family. Duncan then told them the story of the Lillelid Family, who were traveling to a Jehovah’s Witness convention in Johnson City in 1997 when the four members of the family were shot at a rest stop. Only the 2-year-old son survived the shootings and he was left orphaned and permanently disabled.
“What would happen if someone like those thugs attack me and my family? The Lord said a man who won’t protect his family is worse than an infidel,” Duncan said.
After the questioning, Duncan was given his one call to his family. He told them he was being held without bond and he hoped to see them on Monday at his court hearing.
After a weekend in jail, Duncan took comfort when a public defender assured him his case would be dropped.
Duncan was quickly released on his own recognizance. He was allowed to return home and the case was dismissed three weeks later.
His problems are not yet over. Duncan wants the case expunged from his record and his guns returned.
Constitutionaly this man committed no crime. Locally however is another matter. His Right to bear arms did not carry over from Tennessee to Washington D.C. As our Rights come from God and not Government, Washington D.C is infringing on that Right and sent this man to jail for nothing. Notice the officer’s statement. It’s not likely anyone will attack you, you don’t need guns. How can anyone ever know if and when they will be attacked? Only prevention is preparedness, which is what this Pastor was arrested for. To add insult to injury they confiscated his weapons and have not returned them as of yet.
Do you have the freedom to work where you choose and get promoted based on Merit and Character? That depends on where you work and what type of job it is. The Wall Street Journal reports:
Senior Obama administration officials concluded the federal moratorium on deepwater oil drilling would cost roughly 23,000 jobs, but went ahead with the ban because they didn’t trust the industry’s safety equipment and the government’s own inspection process, according to previously undisclosed documents.
The Obama administration decided they didn’t trust the industry, and didn’t trust themselves, so you cannot work providing oil to the United States. Instead we will buy more from our enemies and complain about it. The Government decided for you that this industry is dangerous, regardless of how necessary it may be to energy production and the economy.
We also know now that General Motors used race and sex as factors in deciding which dealerships to close according to the Inspector General. And we recently learned that the Financial Reform Bill had within it diversity hiring quotas. From CNS News:
Financial Reform Bill Passed by House Would Create ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ in Every U.S. Financial Regulatory Agency
The financial regulations package recently passed by the House of Representatives would create a new diversity overseer at each of the major federal financial regulatory agencies, including the new ones created by the legislation itself.
This new office, called the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, would take over from any existing diversity or civil rights office already working at the agencies in question.
It would also be responsible for making sure that each of the major federal financial regulators is hiring enough minorities and women, and contracting with enough minority-owned and women-owned businesses.
However, each individual diversity czar is responsible for defining exactly how many minorities, women, and minority- and women-owned businesses are satisfactory.
“[E]ach agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities,” the legislation says. (The bill passed in the House on June 30; a Senate vote could occur as early as next week.)
In fact, each new diversity chief will be responsible for developing quota-like guidelines proscribing the ethnic and gender makeup of each regulator’s workforce, including upper management.
“Each Director shall develop standards for- (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the work-force and senior management of the agency,” it states.
These diversity offices will also be responsible for “assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.”
This means that in addition to monitoring every bank in the country, checking every financial institution in America to make sure they are not doing anything systemically risky, and trying to prevent another financial collapse, every federal financial regulator will also be counting the number of minority and female employees at banks and investment firms, big and small.
The proposed law would also mandate that federal financial regulators hire from certain types of minority- or women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, and partner with inner-city schools and other minority-focused organizations to hire or mentor more minorities and women.
The diversity offices will also be charged with enforcing the newly written diversity guidelines for each private sector company the regulator contracts with, meaning that they will be checking to ensure that each of the agency’s private contractors is following the agency’s diversity guidelines.
“The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts,” the bill states.
This provision is significant because some of the same federal regulators who must establish these diversity offices – Treasury and Federal Reserve – make heavy use of the private sector on a regular basis. They have also relied heavily on the private financial sector in their responses to the financial crisis.
For example, the Fed’s Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility (TALF) program, which backstopped the securitization market during the height of the financial crisis, was actually run with the help of Bank of New York Mellon, an institution regulated by the New York Fed.
The TALF program, along with other Fed lending programs, had to maintain a strict level of secrecy to protect the banks using the program from irrational runs on their businesses. Because the securitization market had essentially collapsed, TALF’s customers had to remain anonymous if the government was to avoid setting an arbitrary – rather than market – price for securitized debt.
Had the markets learned which financial institutions were using Fed lending programs like TALF, they would have known which securities the Fed was taking as collateral for a particular loan amount. With such information in the public domain, the government would have essentially been fixing the price of asset-backed securities, rather than letting supply and demand set the price in the normal way.
The new diversity office at the Fed – and other financial regulators – apparently would be empowered to dig into such sensitive relationships under the guise of diversity enforcement, possibly endangering the programs and hamstringing their effectiveness.
If one of the new diversity czars thinks a financial firm is not being diverse enough, he potentially could recommend that the regulator terminate the contract(s) the regulator has with that firm.
So how does this translate? Your a white male, top of your class in accounting and economics and you can’t be hired. Maybe your a Black male and a genius, sorry no job for you, we need females. The position will go to the best candidate that fills the racial or sex based quota. It doent matter how qualified you are, it matters whether or not you are a man or a woman and what color your skin happens to be. A private firm might not meet the diversity quota, but can’t afford to hire anyone else, so what are it’s options? Lose the contract or fire and replace as many as necessary for diversity. That’s not equality.
How about the freedom to handle your own garbage? Depends on where you live now, but just might spread. Cleveland now has a special way of monitoring your garbage and how often you recycle. And Cleveland is not alone. From Cleveland.com:
High-tech carts will tell on Cleveland residents who don’t recycle … and they face $100 fine
It would be a stretch to say that Big Brother will hang out in Clevelanders’ trash cans, but the city plans to sort through curbside trash to make sure residents are recycling — and fine them $100 if they don’t.
The move is part of a high-tech collection system the city will roll out next year with new trash and recycling carts embedded with radio frequency identification chips and bar codes.
The chips will allow city workers to monitor how often residents roll carts to the curb for collection. If a chip show a recyclable cart hasn’t been brought to the curb in weeks, a trash supervisor will sort through the trash for recyclables.
Trash carts containing more than 10 percent recyclable material could lead to a $100 fine, according to Waste Collection Commissioner Ronnie Owens. Recyclables include glass, metal cans, plastic bottles, paper and cardboard.
City Council on Wednesday approved spending $2.5 million on high-tech carts for 25,000 households across the city, expanding a pilot program that began in 2007 with 15,000 households.
The expansion will continue at 25,000 households a year until nearly all of the city’s 150,000 residences are included. Existing carts might be retrofitted with the microchips.
“We’re trying to automate our system to be a more efficient operation,” Owens said. “This chip will assist us in doing our job better.”
The chip-embedded carts are just starting to catch on elsewhere. The Washington, D.C. suburb of Alexandria, Va., earlier this year announced it would issue carts to check whether people are recycling.
Some cities in England have used the high-tech trash carts for several years to weigh how much garbage people throw out. People are charged extra for exceeding allotted limits.
Your trash can will now decide if you are recycling enough or not and have you fined accordingly. You are being nudged right in your own home and monetarily punished if you do not comply.
How about the Right to Privacy? This right is being shredded. Apparently you no longer have the right to privacy of location. The Government is not wrong to track and follow anyone at anytime with or without a warrant. From Yahoo News/Time:
The Government’s New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.(See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision – one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle’s underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA’s actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno’s privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the “curtilage,” a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government’s intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno’s driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month’s decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people’s. The court’s ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. “There’s been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there’s one kind of diversity that doesn’t exist,” he wrote. “No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter.” The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of “cultural elitism.” (Read about one man’s efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state – with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit’s – including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s pro-privacy ruling was unanimous – decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. “1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last,” he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell’s totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: “Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we’re living in Oceania.”
So the Federal Government can,based on a whim or suspicion without any warrant, monitor where your personal location at all times with no justification necessary. Let us hope the Supreme Court overturns this one or we will be living 1984.
Court Fails to Protect Privacy of Whistleblower’s Email
Today the Eleventh Circuit issued an unfortunate amended decision in Rehberg v. Hodges. The case arose from an egregious situation in which, among other misconduct, a prosecutor used a sham grand jury subpoena to obtain the private emails of whistleblower Charles Rehberg after he brought attention to systematic mismanagement of funds at a Georgia public hospital.
The Court held that Mr. Rehberg’s privacy interest in his emails held by his ISP was not “clearly established” and therefore his claim against the prosecutors could not proceed. The Court relied on a legal doctrine called qualified immunity, which holds that lawsuits against government officials for violations of constitutional rights cannot proceed unless those rights were “clearly established” at the time. The Court declined to rule on whether individuals have a privacy interest in the content of their emails.
We’re disappointed in this decision. Not only is it wrong for Mr. Rehberg, who had his emails turned over to a prosecutor based on a sham subpoena, but it’s troubling for the millions of individuals in the Eleventh Circuit who have their email stored with ISPs. Our most sensitive and private thoughts, ideas and correspondence are contained in our emails. The Fourth Amendment requires judicial supervision (usually a warrant) before the government can access your personal papers in order to protect against just the sort of abuse that Mr. Rehberg suffered — a rogue government official seeking to get your emails from your ISP with no court oversight and then turning it over to others who seek to harm you.
While the decision is very bad news for Mr. Rehberg, the Court did take the opportunity to correct some erroneous analysis in the panel’s previous decision. The earlier decision had held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply at all once an email was received by your ISP. The Court had written that a “person also loses a reasonable expectation of privacy in emails, at least after the email is sent to and received by a third party” and that “Rehberg’s voluntary delivery of emails to third parties constituted a voluntary relinquishment of the right to privacy in that information.” This is not the law, and the incorrect statements are no longer precedent. In other words, the Court did not rule out the possibility that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in your email. That is useful and will be important to other cases moving forward, as law professor Paul Ohm, who wrote an amicus brief in the case, has noted.
However, the Court did not rule that there was privacy protection for your emails either. Rather than embracing the obvious conclusion that our constitutional protections need to be recognized for email content, the court ducked the question, claiming that email is simply too new a technology for them to decide whether the Constitution applies. With all due respect, email is far too important to the daily lives of millions of Americans for its constitutional status to be unclear. Email content must be protected by the Fourth Amendment whether stored with an ISP or not. It’s long past time that the courts recognize that the constitutional privacy protections for our “papers” still apply when they are in digital form.
So two different Circuit Courts have voted against your Right to Privacy in two different ways, both of which are a blow to freedom. Makes this scenario all the more realistic:
These are not all the attacks ongoing on our freedoms, I cannot keep up with them all, but Big Government keeps growing, which means Rights, freedoms, and liberties will shrink and be infringed. The Principles of freedom cannot coexist with a Big Progressive Government. We can only hope for a significant victory in November to turn this tide around before we lose all of our Liberties.
Our current Attorney General, Mr. Eric Holder has been active just behind the scenes in our Government in Politics for many years. He has been instrumental in President Clinton’s pardoning of terrorists, taken a position against the 2nd amendment, twists the first amendment, as well as calling Americans “cowards” about race. When chosen by Obama to be the Attorney General Eric Holder gave the following speech.
“We look forward to actually restructuring policies that are both protective and consistent with who we are as a nation. ”
“I also look forward to working the men and women of the Department of Justice to revatialize the depts efforts in those areas where the Department has unique capabilities and responsibilities in keeping our people safe, ensuring fairness, and in protecting our environment.”
A little wishy-washy but sounds fair enough. However his recent moves and positions show that he is hardly comitted to keeping to the above rhetoric.
First heres an interview he gave to Katie Couric in 2009
Although a softball interview you can see his 2nd amendment stance emerge when pushed by Katie Couric as well as a border security strategy that does nothing to secure the border and ideas on moving Guantanamo detainees and civilian trials for them.
His stance on what to do with terrorists and on the 2nd Amendment are alarming indeed prompting a look into his past.
Eric H. Holder, Jr. was born on January 21, 1951 in the Bronx, New York. His father, Eric Himpton Holder, Sr. (1905 – 1970) hailed from Barbados and worked as a real estate broker. His mother, Miriam, was the American-born daughter of immigrants from Saint Philip, Barbados.
Eric Holder graduated from Columbia University in 1973 with a degree in American history. Three years later he graduated from Columbia Law School. During one of the summers between his law school academic years, he worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Holder was employed by the U.S. Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 1976 to 1988. In 1988 President Ronald Reagan appointed him as a Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Five years later Holder left this position when President Bill Clinton appointed him U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997 Clinton nominated Holder to replace Jamie Gorelick, the retiring Deputy Attorney General in Janet Reno’s Justice Department. Holder was confirmed in the Senate by a unanimous vote.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder, as The Washington Post explained, “was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons.” Indeed, Holder was a key figure entrusted with the task of vetting the Clinton administration’s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. The beneficiaries of those pardons included such notables as former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who was involved in the deadly 1981 armed robbery of a Brink’s armored car) and Linda Evans (who had used false identification to buy firearms, harbored a fugitive, and was in possession of 740 pounds of dynamite at the time of her arrest in 1985).
So for the record, Holder was instrumental in the pardoning of two terrorist associates of Bill Ayer’s Marxist terrorist group, The Weather Underground. Continuing with the bio:
Holder and the Pardon of Marc Rich
Holder also played a role in the presidential pardon granted to the billionaire financier Marc Rich, a fugitive oil broker who had illegally purchased oil from Iran during the American trade embargo — and who then proceeded to hide more than $100 million in profits by using dummy transactions in off-shore corporations. Rich later renounced his American citizenship and fled to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, tax fraud, tax evasion, and the illegal oil transactions with Iran.
Over the years, Rich’s ex-wife Denise had funneled at least $1.5 million to Clinton interests. Some $1.2 million went to the Democratic National Committee, $75,000 went to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and $450,000 helped finance the Bill Clinton Library in Arkansas. Mrs. Rich also had given expensive gifts to the Clintons and, according to some rumors, had a very close relationship with the President.
“Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was ‘neutral, leaning toward’ favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members.”
“Holder’s role in the Rich issue actually began … [a]t a corporate dinner in November 1998, [where] Mr. Holder was seated at a table with a public-relations executive named Gershon Kekst, who had been trying to help Mr. Rich resolve his legal troubles. When Mr. Kekst learned that his dinner companion was the deputy attorney general, he proceeded to bring up the case of an unnamed acquaintance who had been ‘improperly indicted by an overzealous prosecutor.’ … A person in that situation, Mr. Holder advised, should ‘hire a lawyer who knows the process, he comes to me, we work it out.’ Mr. Kekst wanted to know if Mr. Holder could suggest a lawyer. Mr. Holder pointed to a former White House counsel sitting nearby. ‘There’s Jack Quinn,’ he said. ‘He’s a perfect example.’ Months later, Mr. Rich’s advisers settled on Mr. Quinn to lead the legal efforts …
“In February 2000, Mr. Quinn sent Mr. Holder a memorandum entitled ‘Why D.O.J. [Department of Justice] Should Review the Marc Rich Indictment.’ About a month later, Mr. Holder spoke with Mr. Quinn again and told him that ‘we’re all sympathetic’ and that the legal ‘equities’ in the issue were ‘on your side.’ … By the fall of 2000, efforts to re-open the criminal case were dead, and Mr. Rich’s lawyers had moved on to the idea of a pardon. Again, Mr. Quinn turned to Mr. Holder. On Nov. 21, 2000, at the close of a meeting on a separate topic, Mr. Quinn took Mr. Holder aside, told him he was planning on filing a lengthy pardon petition with the White House and asked whether the White House should contact Mr. Holder for his opinion … In a separate e-mail message that Mr. Quinn [had] sent three days before that to other members of the Rich team,… he wrote: ‘Spoke to him last evening. Says to go straight to W.H. [White House]. Also says timing is good.’ …
“For the next months, Mr. Rich’s team pressed ahead with the pardon … On Jan. 19, 2001, Mr. Quinn called Mr. Holder and let him know that the White House would be contacting him for his recommendation on the pardon, which he said was receiving ‘serious consideration.’ Mr. Holder told him that he did not have a personal problem with the pardon, and Mr. Quinn quickly passed on the gist of the conversation to the White House. Minutes later, Mr. Holder received a call from Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, who had opposed the pardon idea and was surprised to hear that Mr. Holder apparently felt differently.
“Mr. Holder, according to Ms. Nolan’s testimony, told her that if the Israelis were in fact pushing for the pardon, he would find that ‘persuasive’ and would be ‘neutral leaning toward’ favorable.”
The next day, President Clinton signed the pardon. Clinton later cited Holder’s assessment as one of the factors that had persuaded him to issue the pardon. And once the pardon was granted, Holder sent his congratulations to Quinn.
A March 2002 congressional report concluded that Rich’s lawyers had tried to circumvent prosecutors (who they knew would oppose the pardon), and instead had chosen to take their case directly to the White House. Holder’s assistance in this process, coupled with his failure to alert prosecutors of a pending pardon, was crucial, said the report.
So a real criminal “Fat-Cat” gets to go free as long as his money finds it’s way into the hands of the Bill and Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party? Can we say Double Standard? Moving on:
Holder and the Pardon of FALN Terrorists
Holder was also intimately involved in President Clinton’s August 11, 1999 pardon of 16 members of the FALN, acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation—a violent terroristorganization (as designated by the FBI) that was active in the U.S. from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s.
The FALN was a Marxist-Leninist group whose overriding mission was to secure Puerto Rico’s political independence from the United States. Toward that end, between 1974 and 1983 the group detonated nearly 130 bombs in such strategically selected places as military and government buildings, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters located mainly in Chicago, New York, and Washington DC. These bombings were carried out as acts of protest against America’s political, military, financial, and corporate presence in Puerto Rico. All told, FALN bombs killed six people—including the Chilean ambassador to the United States—and wounded at least 80 others.
On April 4, 1980, eleven FALN members were arrested in Evanston, Illinois. More of their comrades would also be apprehended in Chicago in the early 1980s. All were charged with seditious conspiracy, but they refused to participate in their own trial proceedings—claiming defiantly that the U.S. government was an illegitimate entity and thus had no moral authority by which to sit in judgment of them. All the defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to federal prison terms ranging from 35 to 105 years.
On November 9, 1993, a self-identified “human rights” organization named Ofensiva ’92 filed a petition for executive clemency on behalf of 18 members of the FALN and another violent organization seeking Puerto Rican independence, Los Macheteros (“The Machete-Wielders”). According to a December 12, 1999 report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform, the prisoners themselves “refused to take part in any process that would legitimize the government’s actions against them, therefore they refused to file their own petitions.”
This presented a problem because the Department of Justice (DOJ) traditionally stipulates that clemency will be considered only if a prisoner first files a petition on his or her own behalf, an act which the Department views as a sign of contrition. Nonetheless DOJ made an exception in this case and accepted Ofensiva ’92’s petition, a document which cast the FALN prisoners as blameless freedom fighters analogous to those Americans who had fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain.
Among the notables who joined Ofensiva ’92’s clemency crusade were Cardinal John O’Connor, Coretta Scott King, Jimmy Carter, and the National Lawyers Guild. Perhaps the most passionate support came from Democrat Representatives Luis Gutierrez (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), and Nydia Velazquez (NY), each of whom echoed Ofensiva ’92’s claim that the FALN members were “political prisoners” who deserved to be released.
The attorneys and advocates who were fighting for the freedom of the FALN prisoners first met with the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney on July 19, 1994. In October 1996 they met with Jack Quinn, Counsel to the President. They were unsuccessful, however, in their efforts to convey the legitimacy of their cause to the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), which in 1996 contacted the Justice Department and recommended against clemency; that recommendation, in turn, was forwarded to the White House.
But the matter was not over; OPA continued to meet with groups and individuals lobbying for clemency on behalf of the FALN terrorists. Then in 1997, Eric Holder — who was President Clinton’s new Deputy Attorney General (in the Justice Department headed by Janet Reno) — became involved in the case.
In this role, Holder was responsible for overseeing clemency investigations and determining which of those requests were ultimately worthy of President Clinton’s attention. As evidenced by a September 1997 memorandum from the Pardon Attorney, the Justice Department was, at this point, receiving numerous inquiries about the FALN and Macheteros—from the White House and from supporters of the prisoners. The aforementioned House Committee on Government Reform report stated: “Throughout the closing months of 1997 it appears that Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was active in the issue. The privilege log reflects at least two notes regarding his questions on the clemency or his thoughts on the matter.”
On November 5, 1997, Holder met with Representatives Gutierrez, Serrano, and Velazquez to discuss the clemency issue. He advised the legislators that they might greatly increase the likelihood of a presidential pardon if they could convince the prisoners to write letters testifying as to the personal remorse they felt for their past actions. But no such letters would be produced for five months, during which time the clemency issue remained on hold. Meanwhile, in a January 6, 1998 letter a senior Justice Department official expressly referred to the FALN members as “terrorists.”
Then on April 8, 1998, Holder again met with FALN supporters. This time, they finally delivered statements from the prisoners as Holder had advised in November. But all the statements were identical—indicating that not one of the prisoners had made an effort to craft his own personal expression of repentance.Undeterred, Holder then raised the question of whether the prisoners might at least agree to renounce future violence in exchange for clemency. One of the prisoners’ backers, Reverend Paul Sherry, made it clear that they surely “would not change their beliefs”—presumably about the issue of Puerto Rican independence—but was vague as to whether they were apt to eschew violence altogether.
Over the next few weeks, Holder and the Justice Department continued to meet with numerous advocates of clemency and to review pertinent materials which the latter brought forth on behalf of the prisoners. Holder clearly was the point man for these clemency negotiations. As Brian Brian Blomquist wrote in the New York Post, “A list of FALN documents withheld from Congress shows that many memos on the FALN clemency decision went directly to Holder, while [Janet] Reno’s role was minimal.” Similarly, New York Daily News reporter Edward Lewine wrote that Holder was “the Justice Department official most involved with this issue.”
Throughout the clemency review process, neither Holder nor anyone else in the Justice Department contacted any of the people who had been victimized (or whose loved ones had been victimized) by the FALN. Most were never aware that clemency for the terrorists was even being contemplated. And those few who were aware of the possibility were rebuffed in their efforts to participate in the review process.
On May 19, 1998, the Pardon Attorney sent Eric Holder a 48-page draft memorandum “concerning clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalist prisoners.” Seven weeks later, on July 8, Holder sent President Clinton a “memorandum regarding clemency matter.” Indeed the Deputy Attorney General was methodically spearheading the march toward clemency — despite the fact that the sentencing judges, the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the FBI were unanimous in their opposition to pardoning the individuals in question.
In late July 1999 an attorney from Holder’s office spoke to White House Counsel Charles Ruff regarding the clemency matter. On August 9, 1999, Holder’s office and OPA held one final meeting to hammer out the details, and two days later the President made his announcement: clemency was granted to sixteen terrorists, most of whom had served only a fraction of their prison terms. Of the sixteen, twelve accepted the offer and were freed, two refused it, and two others, who already were out of prison, never responded.
Congress, for its part, was not pleased—condemning the clemencies by votes of 95-2 in the Senate and 311-41 in the House.
In the aftermath of August 11, 1999, a report by the Justice Department stated that the FALN posed an “ongoing threat” to national security. And in late October 1999 the Senate Judiciary Committee released a report from Attorney General Janet Reno stating that the FALN members’ “impending release from prison” would “increase the present threat” of terrorism.
In an October 20th Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and again with reporters the following day, Eric Holder denied that Reno was referring to the same FALN terrorists whose pardons he had worked so long and hard to secure. Yet when Holder was asked to identify whom Reno was in fact talking about, he responded as follows:
“I don’t know, no, I don’t know that. We might be able to get you some more information on that, but, I mean, you know, there were certain people who are due to be released, or who were at least eligible for parole, had a release date in the next, as I said, three, four years. I don’t know exactly who they were. Maybe—we might be able to get you that information.”
The December 1999 House Committee on Government Reform report stated:
“The 16 [FALN] terrorists appear to be most unlikely candidates. They did not personally request clemency. They did not admit to wrongdoing and they had not renounced violence before such a renunciation had been made a quid pro quo for their release. They expressed no contrition for their crimes, and were at times openly belligerent about their actions…. Notwithstanding the fact that the 16 did not express enough personal interest in the clemency process to file their own applications, the White House appeared eager to assist throughout the process. Meetings were held with supporters, and some senior staff [i.e., Holder] even suggested ways to improve the likelihood of the President granting the clemency. Overall, the White House appears to have exercised more initiative than the terrorists themselves.”
So here we have Eric Holder going out of his way to convince Marxist Terrorists to take an offer of clemency for no apparent reason that anyone can determine. Are you seeing the pattern?
Here’s a look into the FALN case
And how it became a campaign issue in the Primaries for Hillary Clinton
Holder’s Views on Other Matters
“I don’t think there’s any question that there is the need for the Patriot Act, but I think there’s also the need to re-examine the Patriot Act and see how it has been enforced and whether or not we need to strengthen it, whether or not there are things we need to change…. When you look at some of the things that have done under the spirit of the act, where you detain citizens without giving them access to a lawyer, where you listen in on attorney-client conversations without involving a judge, these are the kinds of things that have been done in the name of the Patriot Act by this administration that I think are bad ultimately for law enforcement and will cost us the support of the American people … You have to deal with this whole question of secrecy and the way in which the administration has conducted itself. You need to involve judges. If you’re going to look at business records or library records, this should not be something that’s simply done by the executive branch without the involvement of judges.”
Holder has condemned the Guantanamo Bay detention center as an “international embarrassment,” even though detainees there are treated more humanely than even the Geneva Conventions require. Despite evidence to the contrary, he has accused the U.S. government of having “authorized torture and … let fear take precedence over the rule of law.” And he has demanded an immediateend to warrantless eavesdropping by intelligence and counterterrorism officials.
In a June 2008 speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS), Holder, who was himself an ACS Board of Directors member, condemned “the disastrous course” which the Bush administration had followed in its efforts to combat terrorism. “Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror,’” he said, “have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe.”
Holder added that the Bush administration had taken many steps that “were both excessive and unlawful” in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
“I never thought I would see the day when a Justice Department would claim that only the most extreme infliction of pain and physical abuse constitutes torture and that acts that are merely cruel, inhuman and degrading are consistent with United States law and policy, that the Supreme Court would have to order the president of the United States to treat detainees in accordance with the Geneva Convention, never thought that I would see that a president would act in direct defiance of federal law by authorizing warrantless NSA surveillance of American citizens. This disrespect for the rule of law is not only wrong, it is destructive in our struggle against terrorism.”
On the subject of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act, Holder in April 2004 said the following:
Now isn’t it interesting that he can be against the Bush anti-terror policies and has had a big hand in releasing several terrorists, but seeks to determine if strengthing the Patriot Act is necessary? Just who is he looking for? In the end he divides his stance and says some of the Patriot Act is for the Executive Branch alone “without the involvement of judges.” Now that’s Tyranny.
Here’s Eric Holder getting grilled by Rep Gohmert on Hate Crimes legislation and the First Amendment, Water Boarding, and National Security
Holder has stated that he is personally opposed to the death penalty.
In 2008 Holder campaigned heavily for then-Illinois senator Barack Obama‘s presidential run. In the summer of 2008, candidate Obama tapped Holder to serve on the vice presidential selection team that ultimately chose Joe Biden to be Obama’s running mate. In November 2008, President-elect Obama, who was slated to take his oath of office two months later, selected Holder to serve as his Attorney General.
At the time Obama made this selection, the Washington, DC-based law firm Covington & Burling (C&B), where Holder was a partner, was representing 17 Yemeni detainees (and one Pakistani national) in Guantanamo Bay.A notable former client of Holder’s firm was yet another Guantanamo detainee, from Kuwait, who contributed to an anthology of detainee poetry compiled and published by Holder’s C&B colleague, Marc Falkoff. Falkoff likened the “gentle, thoughtful” poets’ plight to that of the Jews who had been held in concentration camps during World War II. The aforementioned Kuwaiti was released from Guantanamo in 2005 and promptly resumed his terrorist activities. In March 2008 he blew himself up with a truck bomb in Mosul, Iraq, killing 13 Iraqi army soldiers and wounding 42 others.
In a February 18, 2009 speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder alleged that Americans on the whole were afraid to confront racial issues in an honest or meaningful way. Among his remarks were the following:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards…. [W]e, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. [T]his nation has still not come to grips with its racial past … [A] black history month is a testament to the problem that has afflicted blacks throughout our stay in this country. Black history is given a separate, and clearly not equal, treatment by our society in general and by our educational institutions in particular.”
So he continously goes out of his way to get terrorists out of jail, either by Presidential pardon, or direct representation, yet calls the USA a “Nation of Cowards” about race. I think terrorists are cowards and the USA is a beautiful melting pot where, for many, the prejudices of old no longer exist.
In May 2009, Holder announced that Ahmed Ghailani — who was indicted by a federal grand jury for the 1998 bombings (which killed 224 people, including 12 Americans) of two U.S. embassies in Africa — would be transferred from the Guantanamo Bay detention center to New York City for trial. This would make Ghailani the first Guantanamo detainee brought to the U.S. and the first to face trial in a civilian criminal court. Said Holder:
“By prosecuting Ahmed Ghailani in federal court, we will ensure that he finally answers for his alleged role in the bombing of our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya…. This administration is committed to keeping the American people safe and upholding the rule of law, and by closing Guantanamo and bringing terrorists housed there to justice we will make our nation stronger and safer.”
In August 2009, Holder appointed a federal prosecutor to investigate possible abuses by Bush-era CIA interrogators who used harsh tactics on terror detainees.
On November 13, 2009, Holder announced that his Justice Department would try five Guantanamo Bay detainees with alleged ties to the 9/11 conspiracy, in a civilian court — the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The defendants were Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, Walid bin Attash, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, and 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Holder also stated that Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a major suspect in the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, would be tried by a military commission, along with a few other detainees.
Here is Sen Lindsey Graham confronting Holder on this issue
On April 23, 2010, Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of any individuals whom they had stopped for some legitimate reason, if the behavior of those individuals — or the circumstances of the stop — led the officers to suspect that they might be in the United States illegally. In the ensuing days and weeks, Holder spoke out forcefully against the bill and indicated that the federal government might challenge it. During the weekend of May 8-9, he participated in a number of television interviews in which he warned that the law could lead to racial profiling and might cause Latinos to stop cooperating with police. But in a May 13 House hearing, Holder admitted that he had not read the statute: “I have not had a chance to. I’ve glanced at it. I have not read it.”
On May 13, 2010, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During his testimony, Rep. Lamar Smith tried to get the Attorney General to acknowledge that radical Islam might have played a role in motivating several recently attempted terrorist attacks against U.S. interests — most notably Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s November 2009 shooting of 13 fellow U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood, Texas; Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab’s attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines jet on Christmas Day 2009; and Faisal Shahzad’s attempted car bombing in New York’s Times Square on May 1, 2010. Holder refused to acknowledge Smith’s assertion. A video and transcript of Holder’s exchange with Smith can be viewed here.
And in this video: Eric Holder: Terrorists and Osama Bin Laden Have Same Rights As Charles Manson
Now it’s very interesting to note how this man that has freed terrorists wants to convince us that these terrorists (many of whom are captured on the battlefield) deserve the same rights and criminal trial of a murderer. Lets take a look at how he feels about us and our rights.
It must also be noted that, counting Holder, there are 10 attorneys now working in the Department of Justice that represented Guantanamo Bay detainees according to the Weekly Standard.
Eric Holder tried to reinstate a ban on assault weapons in Feb 2009 according to ABC:
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
“I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.” Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
The NRA quickly went after the administration for this move and you can hear it in this radio interview.
The Huffington Post reported that Holder backed off the ban due to pressure from the NRA. Whether that is the case or not, but this victory may be short lived as the Obama Administration isrecieving pressure to reinstate the ban from Mexico, according to Reuters:
Thursday May 20, 2010
In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon described efforts to fight organized crime in Mexico, where 23,000 people have been killed in drug violence since he came to power in late 2006 and launched an army offensive.
Washington is also aiding Mexico’s battle against drug gangs with a 2007 pledge of $1.4 billion for equipment and police training to help fight the cartels that ship some $40 billion worth of illegal drugs north each year.
The drug violence has become a major political test for Calderon and a growing worry for Washington and foreign investors as violence has spread across the southwest border.
“There is one issue where Mexico needs your cooperation. And that is stopping the flow of assault weapons and other deadly arms across the border,” Calderon said to a standing ovation from U.S. lawmakers.
Calderon said the increase in violence in Mexico had coincided with the 2004 lifting of a U.S. assault weapons ban.
The 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons to civilians expired without being extended by Congress. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has said the administration favors reinstituting the ban, though guns rights groups oppose it.
Calderon said he respects Americans’ Second Amendment right to bear arms but said many of the guns are getting into the hands of criminals.
Mexico has seized around 75,000 guns and assault weapons in the last three years, Calderon said. He said more than 80 percent of them came from the United States and noted there were more than 7,000 gun shops along the border.
“I would ask Congress to help us, with respect, and to understand how important it is for us that you enforce current laws to stem the supply of these weapons to criminals and consider reinstating the assault weapons ban,” he said.
This sounds like the perfect excuse for the Obama Administration to use in circumventing the 2nd Amendment.
However, Eric Holder is also against the Right to Free Speech, at least on the internet.
So we can expect to see him assissting with any Net Neutrality move on the Administrations behalf.
Another big problem for Eric Holder is the accusation that the Justice Department under his command had orders not to pursue voter intimidation cases where the accusers are white and the accused is black. This all stems from the Dropping of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case due to lack of evidence.
Here’s some evidence
And Bill O’Reilly on the subject
This case has been reignited by DoJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams and been taken up by the Civil Rights Comission who, confronted with “DoJ Stonewalling” have asked for “Expanded Powers” in order to investigate. This case is far from over but is not the only instance of Holder’s DoJ interfering with the voting process.
There is also an accusation that the DoJ is ignoring the voting rights of our military voters. Here’s a look from Fox News:
EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military
The Department of Justice is ignoring a new law aimed at protecting the right of American soldiers to vote, according to two former DOJ attorneys who say states are being encouraged to use waivers to bypass the new federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act.
The MOVE Act, enacted last October, ensures that servicemen and women serving overseas have ample time to get in their absentee ballots. The result of the DOJ’s alleged inaction in enforcing the act, say Eric Eversole and J. Christian Adams — both former litigation attorneys for the DOJ’s Voting Section — could be that thousands of soldiers’ ballots will arrive too late to be counted.
“It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted,” said Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights. “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.”
Adams, a conservative blogger (www.electionlawcenter.com) who gained national attention when he testified against his former employer after it dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, called the DOJ’s handling of the MOVE Act akin to “keystone cops enforcement.”
“I do know that they have adopted positions or attempted to adopt positions to waivers that prove they aren’t interested in aggressively enforcing the law,” Adams told FoxNews.com. “They shouldn’t be going to meeting with state election officials and telling them they don’t like to litigate cases and telling them that the waiver requirements are ambiguous.”
The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific “undue hardship” in enforcing it.
Sen. John Cornyn,R-Texas – who co-sponsored MOVE – wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder on July 26 saying he is concerned that the Department of Justice is allowing states to opt out of the new law.
“Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted,” Cornyn said in a statement to FoxNews.com. “But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.
“For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.”
In his letter to Holder, Cornyn cites minutes from the 2010 winter meeting of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), during which Rebecca Wertz, deputy chief of the DOJ’s voting section, told state election officials that the legislative language regarding waivers is not completely clear. Wertz described the provisions of the law as “fairly general” and “somewhat of an open question as to what type of information” a state needs to submit in order to for their waiver application to be granted. She said it was also unclear whether waivers are for one election only, or if they apply to future elections.
According to the meeting’s minutes, obtained by FoxNews.com, Wertz also said “that the DOJ is working to find effective ways to disseminate any information guidance that can help states with different questions about MOVE interpretation. She invited questions and dialogue from states, and said that litigation is always the last resort.”
Cornyn wrote, “If these are the positions of the DOJ, then they fly in the face of the clear statutory language, undermine the provisions in question, and jeopardize the voting rights of our men and women in uniform.”
He said the language of the law makes it clear that there is no ambiguity when it comes to states’ eligibility for being granted a waiver, and that the statute does not leave room for the Justice Department to decide whether to enforce its requirements.
“If a state is not in compliance with the statute, there is little room for “dialogue” or negotiation, and the Voting Section should take immediate steps to enforce the law and safeguard military and overseas voting rights, including pursuing litigation whenever necessary,” Cornyn wrote. “The comments by the DOJ official, as reported in the NASS minutes, appear to ignore Congress’ clear legislative language and could facilitate the disenfranchisement of our men and women in uniform.”
Cornyn, who discussed Eversole’s allegations at a meeting with Defense Department officials last week, called for Holder to immediately provide guidelines to state election officials; to ensure that states are required to abide by the law; and to provide Cornyn himself with a state-by-state breakdown of which states have already applied for waivers and which are expected to be in noncompliance with MOVE in the November midterm election. He also called for full transparency in the waiver process.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Xochitl Hinojosa, declined to comment, other than to say Cornyn’s letter is being reviewed.
FoxNews.com obtained waiver applications submitted by Washington and Hawaii.
Defense Department spokeswoman Major April Cunningham told FoxNews.com that New York, Delaware, Maryland, Alaska and Virgin Islands had also applied for waivers. (Cornyn’s co-sponsor for the MOVE Act was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat.)
“All waivers are currently under review. The Defense Department must respond, under the law, after consultation with the Department of Justice, no later than 65 days before the election, which is August 29, 2010,” said Robert Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program.
“The voting section has taken this haphazard approach to enforcing military voting law,” said Eversole. “The voting section is asserting itself into statute to make a statute that’s not ambiguous, ambiguous. Can you imagine any other agency giving prospective defendants advice like this?”
“Everybody in Washington knows it doesn’t matter how good the law is; it comes down to who’s enforcing it,” said Adams. “This stuff should be transparent and online for the citizens of these states to comment on, the fact that it’s being done behind closed doors tells you everything you need to know about how it will affect the voters.”
Adams and Eversole separately pointed out that the DOJ’s website lacks any mention of the MOVE Act. In fact, the section on military voting includes the outdated and nonbinding 30-day recommendation for sending out ballots. There is no mention of the the current 45-day mandate.
But the DOJ’s online voting section includes a detailed section devoted to helping felons learn how get their voting rights back.
“It is just offensive to most Americans that we can send soldiers to the front lines but they can’t vote,” said Eversole. “This is an issue that tugs at the heartstrings of America and people can’t understand why we can’t get that right. This is something we have to get right. We should be fighting as hard for their rights as they’re fighting for ours.”
So soldiers do not have a vote but let’s see what we can do for convicted felons. Department of Justice indeed. The Department of Justice responded to the allegations here, but as yet, no progress has been made that I am aware of.
So the Department of Justice under Eric Holder does not represent our traditional blind justice. Instead it’s selective justice and interpretation. Treat terrorists like shoplifters even if they are taken off the battlefield and set them free whenever possible, pardon a billionaire criminal as long as he donates big money to the Democratic Party, ignore voter intimidation when race is an issue, ignore the voting rights of soldiers when convenient but do everything you can to assist convicted felons get their voting rights back, and ignore the 2nd amendment if possible and the 1st if you can make it happen with legislation and internet control. Don’t forget that no state better try and enforce the Illegal Immigration laws that we are intentionally trying to ignore or you will face a lawsuit.
This is not Justice, this is using the law and office to further a left wing agenda. This is Eric Holder’s Department of Justice. This is Eric Holder.
The latest polls say that 1 in 4 believe Obama to be a Muslim. Obama is not a Muslim, but his chosen faith isn’t really Christianity, but a perversion called Black Liberation Theology (BLT). In BLT there is only the oppressors and the oppressed. This is very important to understand as we go through his statements. First lets look at a statement from his book The Audacity of Hope Via Snopes and truthorfiction.com: (emphasis mine)
Page 261 The Audacity of Hope
“Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
He is not saying I am Muslim, but those he associates with, such as Rashid Khalidi, have convinced him that Muslims, or more specifically in this case American Muslims are another oppressed minority. Keeping with his distorted Christianity he advocates that he must “stand with them” if the US begins internment camps like during World War II or if “the political winds shift in an ugly direction” in general.
In 2004 Obama sat down for an interview with Cathleen Falsani, a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times. The subject was his religion. The Website Beliefnet.com reposted the interview in it’s entirety in 2008. I have reposted it below in it’s entirety: (Emphasis other than names is mine)
What do you believe?
OBAMA: I am a Christian.
So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith.
On the other hand, I was born in Hawaii where obviously there are a lot of Eastern influences.
I lived in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, between the ages of six and 10.
My father was from Kenya, and although he was probably most accurately labeled an agnostic, his father was Muslim.
And I’d say, probably, intellectually I’ve drawn as much from Judaism as any other faith.
(A patron stops and says, “Congratulations,” shakes his hand. “Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you.”)
So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived.
And so, part of my project in life was probably to spend the first 40 years of my life figuring out what I did believe – I’m 42 now – and it’s not that I had it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values. FALSANI:
Have you always been a Christian?
OBAMA: I was raised more by my mother and my mother was Christian.
Any particular flavor?
My grandparents who were from small towns in Kansas. My grandmother was Methodist. My grandfather was Baptist. This was at a time when I think the Methodists felt slightly superior to the Baptists. And by the time I was born, they were, I think, my grandparents had joined a Universalist church.
So, my mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We’d go to church for Easter. She wasn’t a church lady.
As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn’t particularly, he wasn’t a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you’d hear the prayer call.
So I don’t think as a child we were, or I had a structured religious education. But my mother was deeply spiritual person, and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world’s religions, and talk to me about them. And I think always, her view always was that underlying these religions were a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself but also for the greater good.
And, so that, I think, was what I carried with me through college. I probably didn’t get started getting active in church activities until I moved to Chicago.
The way I came to Chicago in 1985 was that I was interested in community organizing and I was inspired by the Civil Rights movement. And the idea that ordinary people could do extraordinary things. And there was a group of churches out on the South Side of Chicago that had come together to form an organization to try to deal with the devastation of steel plants that had closed. And didn’t have much money, but felt that if they formed an organization and hired somebody to organize them to work on issues that affected their community, that it would strengthen the church and also strengthen the community.
So they hired me, for $13,000 a year. The princely sum. And I drove out here and I didn’t know anybody and started working with both the ministers and the lay people in these churches on issues like creating job training programs, or afterschool programs for youth, or making sure that city services were fairly allocated to underserved communites.
This would be in Roseland, West Pullman, Altgeld Gardens, far South Side working class and lower income communities.
And it was in those places where I think what had been more of an intellectual view of religion deepened because I’d be spending an enormous amount of time with church ladies, sort of surrogate mothers and fathers and everybody I was working with was 50 or 55 or 60, and here I was a 23-year-old kid running around.
I became much more familiar with the ongoing tradition of the historic black church and it’s importance in the community.
And the power of that culture to give people strength in very difficult circumstances, and the power of that church to give people courage against great odds. And it moved me deeply.
So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church. FALSANI: Did you actually go up for an altar call?
It was a daytime service, during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. Because, it was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.
How long ago?
16, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88
FALSANI: So you got yourself born again?
OBAMA: Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.
I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.
FALSANI Do you still attend Trinity?
OBAMA: Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.
Ever been there? Good service.
I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.
FALSANI: Do you pray often?
OBAMA: Uh, yeah, I guess I do.
Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.
One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren’t right or don’t serve your constituents.
And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I’m having internally. I’m measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I’m on track and where I think I’m off track.
It’s interesting particularly now after this election, comes with it a lot of celebrity. And I always think of politics as having two sides. There’s a vanity aspect to politics, and then there’s a substantive part of politics. Now you need some sizzle with the steak to be effective, but I think it’s easy to get swept up in the vanity side of it, the desire to be liked and recognized and important. It’s important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it’s advantageous to me politically, or because I think it’s the right thing to do? Am I doing this to get my name in the papers or am I doing this because it’s necessary to accomplish my motives.
Checking for altruism?
Yeah. I mean, something like it.
Looking for, … It’s interesting, the most powerful political moments for me come when I feel like my actions are aligned with a certain truth. I can feel it. When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.
What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?
OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.
That’s something you learn watching ministers, quite a bit. What they call the Holy Spirit. They want the Holy Spirit to come down before they’re preaching, right? Not to try to intellectualize it but what I see is there are moments that happen within a sermon where the minister gets out of his ego and is speaking from a deeper source. And it’s powerful.
There are also times when you can see the ego getting in the way. Where the minister is performing and clearly straining for applause or an Amen. And those are distinct moments. I think those former moments are sacred.
FALSANI: Who’s Jesus to you?
(He laughs nervously)
Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.
And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.
FALSANI: Is Jesus someone who you feel you have a regular connection with now, a personal connection with in your life?
OBAMA: Yeah. Yes. I think some of the things I talked about earlier are addressed through, are channeled through my Christian faith and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Have you read the bible?
I read it not as regularly as I would like. These days I don’t have much time for reading or reflection, period.
Do you try to take some time for whatever, meditation prayer reading?
I’ll be honest with you, I used to all the time, in a fairly disciplined way. But during the course of this campaign, I don’t. And I probably need to and would like to, but that’s where that internal monologue, or dialogue I think supplants my opportunity to read and reflect in a structured way these days.
It’s much more sort of as I’m going through the day trying to take stock and take a moment here and a moment there to take stock, why am I here, how does this connect with a larger sense of purpose.
FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA: Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.
Meet Rev Wright courtesy of ABC News
Meet Father Michael Pfleger
Meet Reverend Meeks courtesy of CBS
Those two will keep you on your toes.
And theyr’e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful.
I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.
Jack Ryan [Obama’s Republican opponent in the U.S. Senate race at the time] said talking about your faith is frought with peril for a public figure.
Which is why you generally will not see me spending a lot of time talking about it on the stump.
Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.
As I said before, in my own public policy, I’m very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.
Now, that’s different form a belief that values have to inform our public policy. I think it’s perfectly consistent to say that I want my government to be operating for all faiths and all peoples, including atheists and agnostics, while also insisting that there are values that inform my politics that are appropriate to talk about.
A standard line in my stump speech during this campaign is that my politics are informed by a belief that we’re all connected. That if there’s a child on the South Side of Chicago that can’t read, that makes a difference in my life even if it’s not my own child. If there’s a senior citizen in downstate Illinois that’s struggling to pay for their medicine and having to chose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer even if it’s not my grandparent. And if there’s an Arab American family that’s being rounded up by John Ashcroft without the benefit of due process, that threatens my civil liberties.
Obama discusses Collective Salvation
I can give religious expression to that. I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don’t think those two things are mutually exclusive.
Do you think it’s wrong for people to want to know about a civic leader’s spirituality?
I don’t’ think it’s wrong. I think that political leaders are subject to all sorts of vetting by the public, and this can be a component of that.
I think that I am disturbed by, let me put it this way: I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God’s mandate.
I think there is this tendency that I don’t think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them.
The conversation stopper, when you say you’re a Christian and leave it at that.
Where do you move forward with that?
This is something that I’m sure I’d have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell.
FALSANI: You don’t believe that?
I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.
I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.
That’s just not part of my religious makeup.
Part of the reason I think it’s always difficult for public figures to talk about this is that the nature of politics is that you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Oftentimes that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest commong denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith, the more potentially dangerous it is.
FALSANI: Do you ever have people who know you’re a Christian question a particular stance you take on an issue, how can you be a Christian and …
OBAMA: Like the right to choose.
I haven’t been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio.That’s dangerous sometimes. But generally, Americans are tolerant and I think recognize that faith is a personal thing, and they may feel very strongly about an issue like abortion or gay marriage, but if they discuss it with me as an elected official they will discuss it with me in those terms and not, say, as ‘you call yourself a Christian.’ I cannot recall that ever happening.
FALSANI: Do you get questions about your faith?
OBAMA: Obviously as an African American politician rooted in the African American community, I spend a lot of time in the black church. I have no qualms in those settings in participating fully in those services and celebrating my God in that wonderful community that is the black church.
But I also try to be . . . Rarely in those settings do people come up to me and say, what are your beliefs. They are going to presume, and rightly so. Although they may presume a set of doctrines that I subscribe to that I don’t necessarily subscribe to.
But I don’t think that’s unique to me. I think that each of us when we walk into our church or mosque or synagogue are interpreting that experience in different ways, are reading scriptures in different ways and are arriving at our own understanding at different ways and in different phases.
I don’t know a healthy congregation or an effective minister who doesn’t recognize that.
If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn’t have to keep coming to church, would they.
Do you believe in heaven?
Do I believe in the harps and clouds and wings?
A place spiritually you go to after you die?
OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.
When I tuck in my daughters at night and I feel like I’ve been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they’re kind people and that they’re honest people, and they’re curious people, that’s a little piece of heaven.
Do you believe in sin?
FALSANI: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.
What happens if you have sin in your life?
I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
FALSANI: Where do you find spiritual inspiration? Music, nature, literature, people, a conduit you plug into?
There are so many.
Nothing is more powerful than the black church experience. A good choir and a good sermon in the black church, it’s pretty hard not to be move and be transported.
I can be transported by watching a good performance of Hamlet, or reading Toni Morrison’s Song of Solomon, or listening to Miles Davis.
FALSANI: Is there something that you go back to as a touchstone, a book, a particular piece of music, a place …
As I said before, in my own sort of mental library, the Civil Rights movement has a powerful hold on me. It’s a point in time where I think heaven and earth meet. Because it’s a moment in which a collective faith transforms everything. So when I read Gandhi or I read King or I read certain passages of Abraham Lincoln and I think about those times where people’s values are tested, I think those inspire me.
What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?
I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself. And that can happen in me making a speech or it can happen in me playing with my kids, or it can happen in a small interaction with a security guard in a building when I’m recognizing them and exchanging a good word.
Is there someone you would look to as an example of how not to do it?
… An example of a role model, who combined everything you said you want to do in your life, and your faith?
I think Gandhi is a great example of a profoundly spiritual man who acted and risked everything on behalf of those values but never slipped into intolerance or dogma. He seemed to always maintain an air of doubt about him.
I think Dr. King, and Lincoln. Those three are good examples for me of people who applied their faith to a larger canvas without allowing that faith to metasticize into something that is hurtful.
Can we go back to that morning service in 1987 or 88 — when you have a moment that you can go back to that as an epiphany…
It wasn’t an epiphany.
It was much more of a gradual process for me. I know there are some people who fall out. Which is wonderful. God bless them. For me it was probably because there is a certain self-consciousness that I possess as somebody with probably too much book learning, and also a very polyglot background.
It wasn’t like a moment where you finally got it? It was a symbol of that decision?
Exactly. I think it was just a moment to certify or publicly affirm a growing faith in me.
Theres quite alot in his statements here that should clue the reader into the fact that his chosen Christianity isn’t very Christian at all, but a perversion known as Black Liberation Theology. This movement is more Marxist than Christian and seperates all people into 2 camps, the oppressor and the oppressed. For a look into it we turn first to Discover the Networks: (Emphasis mine)
Black liberation theology is closely related to the broader phenomenon of liberation theology, which calls for social activism, class struggle, and even violent revolution aimed at overturning the “capitalist oppressors of the poor” and installing, in its place, a socialist utopia that will finally enfranchise the poor and downtrodden. As an extension of this movement, black liberation theology similarly seeks to foment Marxist revolutionary fervor but one founded on racial rather than class solidarity.
A clear definition of black liberation theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men:
“Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of ‘blackness.’ It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says ‘No’ to the encroachment of white oppression.”
The chief architect of black liberation theology was James Cone, author of Black Theology and Black Power. One of the tasks of this movement, according to Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of blacks who have long been victimized by white oppressors. According to black liberation theology, the inherent racism of white people precludes them from being able to recognize the humanity of nonwhites; moreover, their white supremacist orientation allegedly results in the establishment of a “white theology” that is irrevocably disconnected from the black experience. Consequently, liberation theologians contend that blacks need their own, race-specific theology to affirm their identity and their worth.
“What we need,” says Cone, “is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of Black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” Observing that America was founded for white people, Cone calls for “the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.” He advocates the use of Marxism as a tool of social analysis to help Christians to see “how things really are.”
Another prominent exponent of black liberation theology is the Ivy League professor Cornel West, who calls for “a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers” — a dialogue that centers on the possibility of “mutually arrived-at political action.”
Black liberation theology entered the public consciousness in 2008 when the media focused on the racist sermons of Barack Obama’s minister Jeremiah Wright, a strong adherent of the movement.
Meet James Cone, the father of Black Liberation Theology and his explanations on his theology
Now there are many that would use certain quotes to convince you he’s a Muslim
“Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country, I know because I am one of them.”
Meaning I am an American with Muslims in my family and have lived in a Muslim majority country (Indonesia), not I am a Muslim.
In pre-prepared speeches before the Muslim world he quoted the Quran in an effort of outreach to the Muslim world as part of his apology tour. Remember he believes they are oppressed people and moves to save them in accordance with collective salvation. He can see eye to eye with Muslims because he has been taught through his chosen theology that it’s White People, Jews, and Capitalism that are evil. The Marxism comes from his mother, father, step-father, grandparents, and mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
Though his father and step father were Muslim he really didn’t have alot of exposure to them, nor the rest of his family in Kenya. He does have Muslim friends such as Rashid Khalidi. One key Muslim friend from the past that must be noted here is Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour who reportedly got Obama into Harvard Law through connections. If you isten to the teachings from Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour you will draw the conclusion that he isn’t preaching Islam, but Black Liberation Theology through Islam. You can hear James Cone’s work in the sermons of both Rev. Wright and the lectures of Dr. Mansour.
In closing Obama is not Muslim, but not Christian. He is a Marxist that has been given a theology to back up Marxism and racism. This theology preaches that Redistribution of Wealth is mandatory for all or you will never go to Heaven. This theory of Collective Salvation is just a way to hide Marxism within a religion and, having been raised on Communism, Obama bought it.
Yesterday on August 19th Obama took advantage of the Senate’s recess to push through four people for political positions by Recess Appointment. One of the four raised a few eyebrows, and for good reason. She is Maria del Carmen Aponte and she is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. First the Official Story.
On December 9th 2009 Obama nominated her for the position, but has been unable to get her through the Senate and you will see why. She was appointed with the following announcement and bio: (Emphasis mine)
President Obama Announces Recess Appointments to Key Administration Posts. Four Appointees Have Waited an Average of 303 Days for Senate Confirmation.
WASHINGTON – President Obama announced today his intent to recess appoint four nominees to fill key administration posts that have been left vacant for an extended period of time.
“At a time when our nation faces so many pressing challenges, I urge members of the Senate to stop playing politics with our highly qualified nominees, and fulfill their responsibilities of advice and consent,” President Obama said. “Until they do, I reserve the right to act within my authority to do what is best for the American people.”
The President announced his intent to recess appoint the following nominees:
Maria del Carmen Aponte, Nominee for Chief of Mission, Republic of El Salvador
Maria del Carmen Aponte is currently an attorney and independent consultant with Aponte Consulting and serves on the Board of Directors of Oriental Financial Group. From 2001-2004, Ms. Aponte was the Executive Director of the Puerto Rican Federal Affairs Administration (PRFAA). Prior to that, she practiced law for nearly twenty years with Washington D.C. based law firms. Ms. Aponte also served as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Council of La Raza, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the University of the District of Columbia. She is also a member of the Board of Rosemont College. She served as president of the Hispanic National Bar Association; the Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia; and as a member of the District of Columbia Judicial Nominations Commission. In 1979, as a White House Fellow, Ms. Aponte was Special Assistant to United States Housing and Urban Development Secretary Moon Landrieu. Ms. Aponte has a B.A. in Political Science from Rosemont College, an M.A. in Theatre from Villanova University, and a J.D. from Temple University.
So a former Board Member of Radical La Raza (The Race) is now our Ambassador to El Salvador. Let’s take an indepth look into La Raza before we get back to Mrs Aponte. From Discover the Networks:
Founded in 1968 as the Southwest Council of La Raza, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. It works “to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans,” who are, in its estimation, an oppressed minority that suffers much injustice and discrimination in American society. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR is active in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, “providing a Latino perspective” in the following areas:
Advocacy and Electoral Empowerment: In an effort “to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve life opportunities for Hispanics,” NCLR works for “increased Latino participation in the political process.”
Civil Rights and Justice: “Discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans. NCLR [seeks] to promote and protect equality of opportunity in voting, justice issues, education, employment, housing, and health care for all Americans.”
Community and Family Wealth-Building: Lamenting the Hispanic community’s “lack of access to capital,” this program aims “to measurably increase the level of … assets” held by that demographic. Toward that end, NCLR has initiated America’s largest Hispanic Community Development Finance Institution (CDFI) to provide low-cost capital.
Education: This program “focuses its investment in the areas of early childhood education and high-school reform, where the disparity between Latinos and other groups is greatest. NCLR [engages in] advocacy for policy outcomes that will make the nation’s public school system more responsive to the needs of Latino children.” NCLR also supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents.
Employment and Economic Opportunities: This initiative “seeks to advance the economic well-being of Latinos by focusing its program and policy work on closing the employment and skills gaps between Latinos and other Americans … [and] in increasing access to federally-funded job training services and opportunities for Latino workers.”
Farmworkers: “NCLR conducts policy analyses and advocacy activities in this area in order to improve conditions and opportunities for the nation’s farmworkers. NCLR also works very closely with the Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. a national advocacy group for migrant and seasonal workers [illegal aliens].”
Health and Family Support: NCLR collaborates with a variety of organizations — state, local, and national — to promote “reform” that would give illegal immigrants full access to taxpayer-funded health care services.
Immigration: NCLR strives “to encourage immigration policies that are fair and nondiscriminatory, to encourage family reunification, and to enact necessary reforms to the current immigration system.” In short, it favors amnesty for illegals already residing in the U.S., and open borders henceforth. In La Raza’s calculus, any restriction on the free movement of immigrants constitutes a violation of their civil rights, and any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers is “a disgrace to American values.” Thus La Raza supports continued mass Mexican immigration to the United States, and hopes to achieve, by the sheer weight of numbers, the re-partition of the American Southwest as a new state called Aztlan — to be controlled by its alleged rightful owners, the people and government of Mexico. La Raza is also a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, which seeks to secure ever-expanding rights and civil liberties protections for illegal immigrants, and policy reforms that diminish or eliminate future restrictions on immigration. At many of the “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members have attended in recent times, their signature slogan has been: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united [Hispanic] race will never be defeated!”)
With regard to national security concerns, NCLR has strongly opposed most of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts, alleging that they have “undermined” the rights of “noncitizen Latinos.” For example: La Raza was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights”; it has endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tries to influence city councils to pass resolutions to be non-compliant with the provisions of the Patriot Act; it endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights and called upon the U.S. government to “end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”; and it endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
NCLR’s major policy positions also include the following:
It opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law “opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations.”
It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. La Raza argues this would “result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations.”
It lobbies for racial and ethnic preferences (affirmative action) and set-asides in hiring, promotions, and college admissions.
It supports bilingual education and bilingual ballots.
It supports voting rights for illegal aliens.
It supports stricter hate-crime laws.
It opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.
It opposed President Bush’s signing of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006” which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
As columnist Michelle Malkin reports, La Raza seeks to inculcate young people with its worldview by funding a number of charter schools that advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes.
The organization’s current President is Janet Murquia, who worked at the White House in various capacities from 1994 to 2000, ultimately as deputy assistant to President Bill Clinton. Immediately prior to joining NCLR, she was the Executive Vice Chancellor for University Relations at the University of Kansas.
At the March 2008 “Take Back America” conference sponsored by Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), NCLR joined CAF and five additional leftist organizations in announcing plans for “the most expensive [$350 million] mobilization in history this election season.” The initiative focused on voter registration, education, and get-out-the-vote drives. Other members of the coalition included MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, ACORN, the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund, and the AFL-CIO.
If theres any confusion what La Raza represents heres a couple videos. First up in 2006 their President tried to defend their illegal policies regarding illegal aliens.
And next, the Radical side. Ron Gochez calling for a Communist Revolution against “Frail, racist white people” I don’t have a date for this but have heard around 2005
If you think she severed all ties to them, think again. NCLR issued a press release in honor of her appointment:
Washington, DC—NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, applauds President Obama’s decision to move forward with a Recess Appointment of Maria del Carmen Aponte, as the next U.S. Chief of Mission to the Republic of El Salvador.
The Hispanic community celebrated Ms. Aponte’s nomination last December as a positive step forward in the relationship between the United States and El Salvador; she was further welcomed by informed observers on U.S.-Latin American relations along the entire political spectrum as an inspired choice. Her distinguished career in the private sector, through her law practice, and in public service at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and in heading the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, make her uniquely qualified for this distinguished honor.
In addition, Ms. Aponte has a strong history of personal and professional leadership in the U.S. Latino community, specifically through her service on the board of directors of numerous national Hispanic-serving organizations, including her election as the first female Chair of the Hispanic National Bar Association.
“Ms. Aponte’s familiarity with the Salvadoran-American community makes her a natural choice for U.S. Chief of Mission to El Salvador,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The Senate’s delay in concluding her confirmation process has been unacceptable to the United State’s national interests and it is hard for us to believe, absent any evidence to the contrary, that any legitimate concerns can explain the repeated delays to which this nomination has been subjected.”
Following the approval of her nomination by the Foreign Relations Committee in April, Ms. Aponte’s confirmation vote was delayed by an anonymous “hold.” During her confirmation hearing in March, which was itself the subject of several delays, Ms. Aponte was questioned in detail by members of the Senate about a 20-years-gone romantic relationship with a Cuban national, then employed by the Cuban Interests Section. The FBI first investigated this issue in 1999, after which Ms. Aponte was granted a diplomatic security clearance and nominated for an ambassadorial position. She was again successfully vetted in 2009 by the FBI and the State Department, leading to her current nomination.
“The president’s decision to move forward with Ms. Aponte’s appointment should serve as a strong reminder to some members of the Senate that political games are never acceptable where our nation’s future is concerned,” concluded Murguía.
Now for more detail into why she was not confirmed in the Senate we turn to the Washington Post:
The most contentious of the appointments is Maria del Carmen Aponte, the administration’s pick for ambassador to El Salvador.
Senate Republicans questioned her during a March confirmation hearing about a former romantic relationship with a Cuban national connected to Cuban intelligence.
She denied any contact with Cuban intelligence officials but said she met some Cuban officials socially over the course of the relationship.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and other Republicans later placed a hold on Aponte’s nomination as they sought additional information about her background.
“The White House continued to deny senators information, despite numerous requests, and then recess appoints her to circumvent the advice and consent process. So much for transparency and accountability,” said DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton.
Ok lets add it all up. We have a former board member of a radical Communist organization that admits ties to Cuban officials but not to Cuban intelligence officials going to represent the United States in the Powder Keg of Central America where half the countries basically swear allegiance to Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez pays homage to Fidel Castro, his mentor,every chance he gets. Any tie to Castro is a direct line to Hugo Chavez. He has been buying up more tanks jet fighters and weapons then he can afford from Russia and China and in addition to his Socialist Empire has significant ties to Iran and various South American and Islamic terrorist organizations. Hugo Chavez has brought a defacto Cold War to Central & South America in his pursuit of a Socialist Empire and I fear this ambassadorial pick will play right into his hands.
Obama has previouly stated the he has pulled the economy back from the brink. This is far from truth and quite the opposite. Obama’s economic policies are instead pushing us off the economic cliff. The 13 trillion dollar National Debt is just one of a number of unprecedented warning signs pointing toward an economic collapse. The National Debt is very important, but not the most important on it’s own. There are several other factors that you need to be aware of as well, and here are a few.
Gallup’s measure of underemployment hit 20.0% on March 15th. That was up from 19.7% two weeks earlier and 19.5% at the start of the year.
According to RealtyTrac, foreclosure filings were reported on 367,056 properties in the month of March. This was an increase of almost 19 percent from February, and it was the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began issuing its report back in January 2005.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in March the national rate of unemployment in the United States was 9.7%, but for Americans younger than 25 it was well above 18 percent.
It is being reported that a massive network of big banks and financial institutions have been involved in blatant bid-rigging fraud that cost taxpayers across the U.S. billions of dollars. The U.S. Justice Department is charging that financial advisers to municipalities colluded with Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Lehman Brothers, Wachovia and 11 other banks in a conspiracy to rig bids on municipal financial instruments.
The Mortgage Bankers Association recently announced that more than 10 percent of all U.S. homeowners with a mortgage had missed at least one payment during the January-March time period. That was a record high and up from 9.1 percent a year ago.
The official U.S. unemployment number is 9.9%, although the truth is that many economists consider the true unemployment rate to be much, much higher than that.
The six biggest banks in the United States now possess assets equivalent to 60 percent of America’s gross national product.
The total number of banks that have been shut down this year in the United States to a total of 78.
According to a study published by Texas A&M University Press, the four biggest industries in the Gulf of Mexico region are oil, tourism, fishing and shipping. Together, those four industries account for approximately $234 billion in economic activity each year. Now those four industries have been absolutely decimated by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and will probably not fully recover for years, if not decades.
A massive “second wave” of adjustable rate mortgages is scheduled to reset over the next two to three years. If this second wave is anything like the first wave, the U.S. housing market is about to be absolutely crushed.
The bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
Here is another list compilation posted on July 20, 2010 by TheTruthWins.com titled “40 Bizarre statistics that reveal the horrifying truth about the US Economy”
A recent Pew Research survey found that 55 percent of the U.S. labor force has experienced either unemployment, a pay decrease, a reduction in hours or an involuntary move to part-time work since the recession began.
There are 9.2 million Americans that are unemployed but that are not receiving an unemployment insurance check.
Most of the circumstances in these lists have only gotten worse since being posted.
Bank failures this year have hit 109 via FDIC‘s Failed Bank List
According to EconomicPolicyJournal.com in May 2010 32 States were so bankrupt that they had “Borrowed from the Federal Government to make unemployment payments”
MSNBC reports that “The average rate for 30-year fixed loans fell this week to 4.42 percent”
The Congresional Budget Office (CBO) released a very bleak Report on “The Budget and Economic Outlook.” The report is hiding some facts and our editor and fellow blogger Rich Mitchell takes it apart here.
Today’s Department of Labor Report on unemployment benefits showed the number filing for initial claims jumped 12,000 to 500,000.
A Department of Treasury Report shows that in May China got rid of $33 billion worth of US Treasuries. As well as the Oil Exporters & Japan dropping $8.8 billion. This brings China’s total amount of US Treasuries to it’s lowest level since June 2009.
We also have to take note of the actions of George Soros, the Communist billionaire that is known as The man whomade a billion dollars by ” breaking the Bank of England” and has strong ties to Obama.
Far Left billionaire, democratic donor and Obama supporter, George Soros is bailing out of the US stock market. The value of billionaire investor George Soros’s hedge fund dropped by 42% to $5.1 billion at the end of the second quarter. Economic Policy Journal reported, via Free Republic:
Billionaire trader and political manipulator,George Soros, is clearly not optimistic. The latest SEC filings are out on the Soros hedge fund, Soros Fund Management.
Between the end of March and the end of June, Soros lowered his stock investments from $8.8 billion to $5.1 billion in the fund, Soros Fund Management.
He sold most of his positions (over 95%) in Wal-Mart, J.P. Morgan Chase and Pfizer.
His biggest position at the end of June was in the gold ETF which accounted for 13% of his equity portfolio at $638 million.
This means that George Soros does not have confidence in the US stock market and instead is buying gold to hedge inflation. In my opinion he is preparing for the economic collapse of the US economy, but not all currency and the gold holdings can be used to buy any surviving currency, or a new global currency.
A bigger warning sign that the market is near collapse is the “Hindenburg Omen” which has preceded previous stock market crashes and been recently observed. The Hindenburg Omen is a collection of statistics, that if observed twice within 32 days have always predicted disaster within the Stock Market.
Heres a video explaining the Hindenburg Omen posted in October of 2007
Named after the zeppelin disaster that took place over Lakehurst, N.J., in 1937, the pattern is a “rare but potent” sell signal, said Jay Shartsis, director of option trading at R.F. Lafferty & Co.
For this to be activated, it requires at least 2.2 percent of the market to reach new 52-week highs and 52-week lows on the New York Stock Exchange on the same day, which happened Thursday, suggesting a lack of conviction among investors.
However, it also needs to happen in a rising market, based on certain indicators, including a 10-week moving average of the NYSE Composite, which has to be rising.
Shartsis said the indicator “speaks for itself,” noting that when confirmed by a second occurrence within 36 days, “every crash (since 1985) was preceded by such a signal.”
Other strategists said they hadn’t heard of the indicator, which has been discussed on financial blogs during Friday’s trading.
Today we got our first Hindenburg Omen confirmation. The number of new highs was 136, and new lows was at 69 (per the traditional WSJ source). Granted this particular criteria set was a little weak as the 69 is precisely on the borderline for confirmation (the 2.2%), and the new highs number was not more than double the new lows (although it was close). Less gating were the McClellan oscillator which was negative at -83.6, and the 10 week MVA, which rose, which were the two remaining conditions. The first omen was spotted on August 12 – a week later the H.O has been confirmed. The more confirmations, the scarier it gets from a technical perspective, not to mention the conversion into a self-fulfilling prophecy (like every other technical indicator).
Even though, on June 3rd 2009, Ben Bernanke stated to Congress that the Federal Reserve had no plans to monetize the debt, the Federal Reserve has begun to do just that. The Monetization of the debt is the scariest factor pointing to economic collapse and I cannot stress enough how terrible the outcome of this can be. Even left-wing Huffington Post was taken aback by this move from the Federal Reserve in this post “Federal Reserve Begins Massive Monetization of US Government Debt” (Emphasis mine)
In a step that will be one of the markers on the road to economic and financial catastrophe, the Federal Open Market Committee (otherwise known as the FOMC) of the Federal Reserve, made a bombshell policy decision on August 10, 2010, one fraught with dangerous long-term consequences for the American and global economy.
In a policy being dubbed QE2, the Federal Reserve’s FOMC conceded that the so-called U.S. economic recovery has “slowed,” and required more stimulus from the Fed. However, with federal funds interest rates now effectively at zero, the only aspect of monetary policy left is money printing. Thus, the Federal Reserve, in effect, will use its printing press to buy long-term U.S. government debt.
Of course, that is not how the FOMC is positioning this major escalation in quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. In the dry, obtuse language that the obscurantists of the Federal Reserve love to engage in, the committee’s official statement said:
“To help support the economic recovery in a context of price stability, the Committee will keep constant the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities at their current level by reinvesting principal payments from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in longer-term Treasury securities. The Committee will continue to roll over the Federal Reserve’s holdings of Treasury securities as they mature.”
In its first bout of heavy quantitative easing, in the wake of the implosion of the major Wall Street investment banks in the fall of 2008, Ben Bernanke, utilizing his printing press, purchased $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, and an additional $200 billion in debts owed by so-called government-sponsored enterprises, primarily Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
This massive explosion in the Fed’s balance sheet has thus far failed to stimulate economic activity and retard a persistent deflationary recession. All that Bernanke has accomplished has been to create a new asset bubble, this time on Wall Street, with equities exploding in price far beyond their post-crisis lows.
Beyond the Dow Jones index, however, the impact of Bernanke’s balance sheet expansion has been impotent in the face of economic realities, particularly a collapsing labor market and the contraction in consumer demand. The erosion in the M3 money supply, a statistic the Federal Reserve no longer publicly discloses, attests to the failure of its policies.
Now that the Federal Reserve admits, though in its typically obscure linguistic constructs, that a double-dip recession is becoming increasingly likely, Bernanke is going to enter a buying binge of long-term U.S. Treasuries. The hope is that this will stabilize financial markets, and somehow force liquidity into the economy. That, at least is the hope. Given Ben Bernanke’s track record, I would not bank on hope in the infallible judgement of the Federal Reserve and its FOMC.
What is likely to result from the QE2 phase of the Federal Reserve’s disastrous policymaking? In time, sovereign wealth funds will recognize Bernanke’s maneuver for what it is: monetization of the U.S. national debt. When that happens, Treasury auctions will begin to fail, and yields will advance.
This will all put added pressure on the Fed to print even more dollars, and monetize an increasing proportion of the federal government’s debt. This will unquestionably inject liquidity into the U.S. economy. But this Federal Reserve monetary injection will be as beneficial as money printing was in Weimar Germany in the early 1920s, or Zimbabwe more recently.
In deciding on a process that will lead to an ever-growing proportion of the U.S. national debt and yearly budget deficits being monetized by its printing press, the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of itschairman, Ben Bernanke, has taken a fateful step towards irredeemable economic and financial ruin, ultimately convulsing America with a savage, hyperinflationary depression. And, as history teaches us, severe economic depressions bring along other unanticipated consequences, often leading to political and social turmoil and even global war.
The Huffington Post is telling you that this move will destroy our economy in eventual Hyper-Inflation. Again, this is left-wing Obama loving Huffington Post. Monetizing the debt can dire circumstances in the best of times and is outright apocalyptic in the worst. Add all these factors together and our economy is on the road to ruin. We have a president who has no intention of ever stopping or slowing down the spending in accordance with the Cloward-Piven Strategy. The Stock Market is predicted to fold around October by the Hindenburg Omen. Foreign Nations instead of buying our Debt are beginning to sell it off. When they no longer buy our debt, our Credit Rating will be downgraded and the Federal Government will default. The Fed will continue printing money anyway and we will see hyper-inflation like the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe. Hope for the best but prepare for the worst is the only recommendation I can give.
See Today’s other Conservative Daily News articles for more perspective on the economy:
Continuing our look into Obama’s radical czar’s we come to Ron Bloom. Ron Bloom is yet another Union shill within the Obama administration as well as a Maoist.
First up, Official title and duties from WhiteHouse.gov: Sept 7th 2009
President Obama Names Ron Bloom Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama will announce that Ron Bloom will serve as the Administration’s Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy. Working closely with the National Economic Council, Bloom will provide leadership on policy development and strategic planning for the President’s agenda to revitalize the manufacturing sector. He will work with departments and agencies across the administration – including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, Energy, and Labor – to integrate existing programs and develop new initiatives affecting the manufacturing sector.
Bloom will retain his role as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry.
President Obama is committed to a next-generation manufacturing agenda by partnering with the private sector to spur innovation, invest in the skills of American workers, and help our manufacturers prosper in the global marketplace by promoting exports.
President Obama said, “Last week we learned that our manufacturing sector expanded for the first time in 18 months and had the highest monthly output in two years. It’s a sign that we’re on the right track to economic recovery, but that we still have a long way to go. That’s why I’ve asked Ron Bloom to help coordinate my Administration’s manufacturing policy. Distinguished by his extraordinary service on the Auto Task Force and his extensive experience with both business and labor, Ron has the knowledge and experience necessary to lead the way in creating the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future. We must do more to harness the power of American ingenuity and productivity so that we can put people back to work and unleash our full economic potential.”
Ron Bloom said, “A strong manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of American competitiveness and a critical part of President Obama’s economic strategy. As we meet the challenges of globalization and technological change, it is vital to have a concerted effort across the Administration to support an innovative, vibrant manufacturing sector.”
President Obama on Monday announced his selection of Ron Bloom as senior counselor for manufacturing policy.
Speaking at an AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati, the president introduced Bloom, who has been a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner as part of the auto industry task force since February. Bloom, a Harvard Business School graduate, previously advised the United Steelworkers union and worked as an investment banker.
“As my new point person on manufacturing, he’s going to help us craft the policies that will create the next generation of great manufacturing jobs and ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century,” Obama said.
Bloom will work with the National Economic Council to develop and plan policy for Obama’s efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, the White House said. He will retain his position on the auto task force.
The U.S. manufacturing industry has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in recent years to overseas competition as some U.S. businesses have relocated abroad to take advantage of cheaper labor. Bringing an invigorated manufacturing base back to the United States was a campaign pledge Obama made last year.
Bloom will be charged with reviewing U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. His job will include coordinating with the departments of Commerce, Treasury, Energy and Labor to integrate current programs with new initiatives.
Bloom’s appointment follows news that the U.S. manufacturing sector had expanded for the first time in 18 months and had the highest monthly output in two years.
“It’s a sign that we’re on the right track to economic recovery, but that we still have a long way to go,” Obama said in the announcement, issued Sunday.
Bloom said in the statement that a strong manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of American competitiveness.
“As we meet the challenges of globalization and technological change, it is vital to have a concerted effort across the administration to support an innovative, vibrant manufacturing sector,” Bloom said.
Prior to joining the Obama administration, Bloom was a special assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers. His responsibilities included the union’s collective bargaining program.
Before joining the Steelworkers, Bloom was one of the founding partners of Keilin and Bloom, an investment banking firm, where he was involved in numerous transactions on behalf of the Steelworkers, United Auto Workers, Teamsters, Air Line Pilots Association and other unions.
Born in 1956, Ron Bloom was raised in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he was deeply involved with Habonim — “a progressive Labor Zionist youth movement that emphasizes cultural Judaism, socialism and social justice.” Bloom’s experience with this movement had a major influence on his personal development and worldview. Many years later, in 2009, when accepting a post in the Barack Obama administration, Bloom noted that the lessons he had learned from Habonim – “identifying with the underdog, and … observing the world through a lens [of] people who don’t have as much and aren’t as lucky” — remained “part of what I try to do in my work life.” “That’s one of the things that made me want to work for Obama,” he elaborated.
After graduating from Wesleyan University in 1977, Bloom took a job as an organizer, negotiator, and research specialist for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). While at SEIU, he observed that many union negotiators lacked the skills necessary for bargaining effectively with management:
“Unions were being backed into corners by companies and couldn’t understand on a sophisticated level, the company’s arguments … Labor needed to be armed with the equivalent skills.“
After his stint with SEIU, Bloom went on to work as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Full Employment; then as New England Regional Director of the Jewish Labor Committee.
In 1996 Bloom joined the United Steel Workers (USW) union as a special assistant to the president. At that time, the USW president was George Becker, a co-founder of the Campaign for America’s Future. Bloom retained his position as special assistant when Becker was replaced by Leo Gerard (who today serves as a board member of the Apollo Alliance) in 2001. Both Becker and Gerard have close ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Both have been honored by Chicago’s DSA chapter, for their “leadership in building working class solidarity across borders”; their “advocacy of fair trade over free trade”; and their “commitment to finding a better way to run the economy for working people everywhere.”
In June 2006 Bloom was a featured speaker at the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York, where he said:
“The Steelworkers have some advice for industry execs on how to make sure there’s plenty for both shareholders and workers. The theme of this advice will be really quite simple — be hard-headed and pragmatic capitalists — run the companies and actively participate in the political process on the basis of what is good for your shareholders — and not based on outmoded nostrums about unions, free enterprise, deregulation, free markets and free trade.
“In today’s world the blather about free trade, free markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers. The guys making the real money know that outsized returns are available to those who find the industries that get the system to work for them and the companies within those industries that dominate them.”
Bloom supports federal-government control of the American health care system (“Management must support universal single-payer national health care”). He also believes the government should be authorized to regulate the production and provision of all forms of energy (“It is time to support a comprehensive national energy program”).
At a 2008 “distressed investors” forum, Bloom said:
“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market. Or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”
On July 13, 2009, Bloom replaced Steven Rattner as head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry (a position popularly known as “Car Czar”). This position was created by Barack Obama to oversee federal bailouts of failing automobile manufacturers and the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. On September 8, 2009, President Obama appointed Bloom to an additional post — Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy (a position popularly known as “Manufacturing Czar”).
Ties to Socialism indeed. He wrote an article for their paper Democratic Left “The magazine for the Democratic Socialists of America” in the Fall of 2006 Within it he advocates for Socialist principles such as universal healthcare and more:
The Steelworkers have some advice for industry execs on how to make sure there’s plenty for both shareholders and workers. The theme of this advice will be really quite simple – be hard-headed and pragmatic capitalists – run the companies and actively participate in the political process on the basis of what is good for your shareholders – and not based on outmoded nostrums about unions, free enterprise, deregulation, free markets and free trade.
In today’s world the blather about free trade, free-markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers. The guys making the real money know that outsized returns are available to those who find the industries that get the system to work for them and the companies within those industries that dominate them.
The starting point is that companies need to get along with the union. Companies that establish a constructive partnership with their unions do far better for their shareholders than those that do not.
The first is one where conflicts between labor and management do still exist, and that is health care. On that issue, however, given the fact that the shareholders want us to get along, the answer is to get it out of collective bargaining and into the public sphere. That means that management must support universal single-payer national health care.
The simple fact is that America’s current health care system places those companies that manufacture in the U.S. at a tremendous competitive disadvantage against those who manufacture anywhere else in the developed world. A universal single-payer system, whether financed through general revenue or even a payroll tax, would result in significantly higher profits for the steel industry.
And if that were not enough, one could finally add the huge corrupting and corrosive distortions that petro-politics bring to our nation. Irrespective of where one sits on the various divides in our country, no one defends our “addiction” to foreign energy as healthy for our democracy.
Once again, a vital sector of the economy is being run for the benefit of its producers, not its consumers. And while we can waste time arguing about whether to drill in Alaska’s North Slope, real relief will come only from increasing supply and reducing demand, through huge investments in conservation, clean coal, and renewables – all of which will consume lots of steel and none of which will be done by the guys who today are profiting so handsomely from the status-quo. The steel industry and manufacturers in general need to stop worrying about offending their business school classmates, political soul mates, and friends at the country club and to stand up for their owners. It is time to support a comprehensive national energy program.
To convey the dangers of a trade deficit left unreined, let me quote two well-known radicals.
The first one said the following:
I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice. On the present trajectory, the deficits and imbalances will increase. At some point, the sense of confidence in capital markets that today so benignly supports the flow of funds to the United States and the growing world economy could fade…. I don’t know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change…. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember…. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it.
And the second:
A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us….
The first radical that I quoted was Paul Volker; the second, Warren Buffet. And if you don’t believe them, let’s look at where the most cold-blooded and unemotional capitalists of all – currency traders – are putting their money.
While it may be true that they read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, cluck endlessly at cocktail parties about Eurosclerosis and make contributions to the CATO Institute, during the day they go short the dollar and long the Euro. In the last three and a half years, the Euro is up 40 percent versus the dollar, meaning those whose livelihood depends on an honest assessment of our economy have voted with their feet.
No one seriously believes that the U.S.’s current profligacy will end other than badly, but neither the steel industry nor any other sector of the business community appears willing to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. Each year we are selling almost a trillion dollars of our seed corn and mortgaging forever our future so that we can dance the night away while our poor go hungry and our roads and bridges crumble.
The growth of China and India can be a great opportunity. But not if we, as Lenin so aptly put it, sell them the rope with which to hang us. Steel industry managers need to repudiate the race-to the bottom model of globalization. We need world trade that brings the bottom up, not the top down, and we need to tell the American government to do what every one of its trading partners does – stand up for those who operate on their soil.
So here is Ron Bloom writing in a Socialist Paper advocating for Socialist policies in 2006, you’ll see later he continues the energy policy, but under the guise of Climate Change. You can also see the elements of class warfare, attacking of the free market, and a quote from Lenin, how nice. He has managed to stay out of the spotlight since being appointed but there is a scandal that can be tied to, if not him, his agenda. What factors were used to determine which dealerships were closed by GM?
Stuart Varney explaining Ron Bloom’s extreme Union bias in a debate with Mike Papantonio
News report about Ron Bloom being called to testify before the Senate Banking Committee
Here’s Senator Hutchinson questioning Ron Bloom after the takeover of General Motors on why were certain auto dealers closed
And what do we know now? One condition for the closures of dealerships, according to Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky of TARP was consideration race and gender.
From his Report: ” Factors affecting the decisions of General Motors and Chrysler to reduce their dealership networks”
GM officials attributed these inconsistencies primarily to a desire to maintain coverage in certain rural areas where they have a competitive advantage over import auto companies that are not typically located in rural areas, although ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas. Other dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships.Page 22
Is this Obama manufacturing policy being carried out through Ron Bloom? Protect minorities but fire everyone else?
Here is Ron Bloom advocating for a Green Agenda in a “Clearn Energy Economy Forum”
“The White House has put together this forum because your work in the lab, on the factory floor, in the board rooms and in the halls of government is going to be a big part of the solution to both of those problems.”
“And if the success of the recent Tesla IPO is any indication, we might need even more. In case you haven’t heard, Tesla executed a successful IPO a couple of weeks ago; first by an American auto company in more than 50 years. Given our modest ownership stake in a couple of other car companies, I will confess that we are hoping that it won’t be quite so long until the next one.“
“That is why the administration supports a comprehensive approach to energy policy that includes significant investment in all kinds of clean energy technology. The house of representatives has already passed a truly visionary energy and climate bill. And there is currently a plan in the Senate that would achieve the same goals. We know our friends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are working hard to resolve their differences and come to a bipartisan compromise.”
So your typical Global Warming fearmongering and cries for a Green Agenda which mirrors his 2006 stance on Energy Reform. Also that the “halls of government” will be a big part of the solution says quite alot coming from this administration. After his comment on the “ownership stake” he goes on to claim that Govt wants to get out of the way. Actions speak louder than words. The Obama Government has no intention of ever getting out of the way, their goal is control.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is, was and still is a very large radical Left-wing group operating throughout the country. They also have a very long history you may not realize. You can read a detailed many page history at Discover the Networks: Here are some key points:
Was the largest radical group in America, with more than 400,000 dues-paying member families and more than 1,200 chapters in 110 U.S. cities
Was implicated in numerous reports of fraudulent voter registration, vote-rigging, voter intimidation, and vote-for-pay scams during recent election cycles
Pressured banks to lend money to underqualified minority borrowers
Maintains close ties to organized labor
Calls for more government control over citizens and the economy
Favors a government monopoly in healthcare
Advocates an open-door immigration policy
Announced in March 2010 that it would officially disband as a national entity on April 1 of that year, but it continued thereafter to pursue its agendas under various names at the state level.
In this report on ACORN I am focusing on their involvement with Obama and voter fraud during his election.
ACORN has had a long, friendly relationship with Hillary Clinton, who was a featured guest speaker at the organization’s 2006 national convention. During her address, the Senator lauded ACORN for working “with people who want to organize unions in order to have a better chance to bargain collectively for pay and benefits.”
Notwithstanding its affinity for Mrs. Clinton, ACORN has even closer, more longstanding ties to Barack Obama. Thus on Feb. 21, 2008, the organization officially endorsed Obama for U.S. President. This endorsement came at the very height of Obama’s hard-fought Democratic primary battle against Hillary Clinton. Welcoming the endorsement, Obama told an audience of ACORN workers and supporters: “I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues that you care about my entire career.”
Tracing ACORN’s historical ties to Obama, columnist Mona Charen writes:
“ACORN attracted Barack Obama in his youthful community organizing days. Madeline Talbott [a Chicago activist who led the aforementioned ACORN effort to storm the Chicago City Council in July 1997] hired him to train her staff — the very people who would later descend on Chicago’s banks as CRA shakedown artists. [Obama] later funneled money to [ACORN] through the Woods Fund, on whose board he sat, and through the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, ditto. Obama was not just sympathetic — he was an ACORN fellow traveler.”
The New York Postreports the following about ACORN’s links to Obama:
“Chicago ACORN sought out Obama’s legal services for a ‘motor voter’ case and partnered with him on his 1992 ‘Project VOTE’ registration drive. In those years, he also conducted leadership-training seminars for ACORN’s up-and-coming organizers. That is, Obama was training the army of ACORN organizers who participated in Madeline Talbott’s drive against Chicago’s banks. More than that, Obama was funding them. As he rose to a leadership role at Chicago’s Woods Fund, he became the most powerful voice on the foundation’s board for supporting ACORN and other community organizers. In 1995, the Woods Fund substantially expanded its funding of community organizers — and Obama chaired the committee that urged and managed the shift.
“The Woods Fund report makes it clear Obama was fully aware of the intimidation tactics used by ACORN’s Madeline Talbott in her pioneering efforts to force banks to suspend their usual credit standards. Yet he supported Talbott in every conceivable way. He trained her personal staff and other aspiring ACORN leaders, he consulted with her extensively, and he arranged a major boost in foundation funding for her efforts.
“And, as the leader of another charity — the Chicago Annenberg Challenge — Obama channeled more funding Talbott’s way, ostensibly for education projects but surely supportive of ACORN’s overall efforts.
“In return, Talbott proudly announced her support of Obama’s first campaign for state Senate [in 1996], saying, ‘We accept and respect him as a kindred spirit, a fellow organizer.’”
In November 2008 Matthew Vadum revealed how ACORN, after news of its implication in voter-fraud began to surface during Obama’s 2008 presidential bid, tried to protect the Democratic candidate by covering up its own ties to him:
“In early October , as media coverage of ACORN election fraud scandals intensified, ACORN removed a smoking gun from one of its websites. This was an article that linked Obama to ACORN and to Project Vote and made clear that the two entities were joined at the hip.
“The 2004 article was by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago-based member of the ACORN national board and now a Chicago alderman, and it appeared in Social Policy, a publication of ACORN’s American Institute for Social Justice. Extolling Obama’s political organizing abilities, Foulkes described the close connections between ACORN and its affiliate, Project Vote. She wrote that ACORN ‘invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office.’ So it was only ‘natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress.’ The upshot? ‘By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends.’”
Lets look into some video connections and then look into the voter fraud allegations
“You know you’ve got a friend in me. I definately welcome ACORN’s input, you don’t have to ask me about that. I’m going to call you even if you didn’t ask me.”
“We are going to be calling all of you in to help shape the agenda”
Here’s CNN on the Obama connections to ACORN
And now the tapdance
Now, how about that voter fraud, lets look at some reports, and then the whistleblowers accounts.
CNS News: “ACORN Submitted ‘Thousands and Thousands of Phony’ Voter Registrations, County Registrar Says” Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Matthew Henderson, ACORN’s regional director for Southwest Nevada, however, said that a few duplicate and falsified forms may have slipped through ACORN’s vetting. But the group turned in between 3,000 and 4,000 tagged registration forms, Henderson said, and there is little evidence to support Lomax’s allegations that they missed “thousands.”
The Associated Press reported Friday that the New Mexico GOP found 28 people who voted fraudulently in Albuquerque during the June Democratic primary by absentee ballot. One of the ballots was cast from someone named “Duran-Duran”
The GOP’s review was conducted in House District 13 and only included 92 ballots. That means roughly a third of the ballots examined found by the GOP were fraudulent. The New Mexico GOP released 10 of their suspect ballots. They ballots did not contain required identification information such as Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdates.
PajamasMedia: “The Complete Guide to ACORN Voter Fraud” October 14, 2008
This year there have been several accusations of fraud against ACORN. Over a dozen states are investigating the organization already. Here is a complete list of the ongoing investigations:
North Carolina — State Board of Elections officials have found at least 100 voter registration forms with the same names over and over again. The forms were turned in by ACORN. Officials sent about 30 applications to the state Board of Elections for possible fraud investigation.
Ohio — The New York Post reported that a Cleveland man said he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times. The complaints have sparked an investigation by election officials into the organization, whose political wing has supported Barack Obama. Witnesses have already been subpoenaed to testify against the organization.
Nevada — Authorities raided the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now on Tuesday October 7, 2008, after a month-long investigation. The fraudulent voter registrations included the Dallas Cowboys starting line-up.
Indiana — More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana’s Lake County filled out by ACORN employees turned out to be bogus. Officials also stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.
Connecticut — Officials are looking into a complaint alleging ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in Bridgeport. In one instance, an official said a card was filled out for a 7-year-old girl, whose age was listed as 27. 8,000 cards were submitted in Bridgeport.
Missouri — The Kansas City election board is reporting 100 duplicate applications and 280 with fake information. Acorn officials agreed that at least 4% of their registrations were bogus. Governor Matt Blunt condemned the attempts by ACORN to commit voter fraud.
Pennsylvania — Officials are investigating suspicious or incomplete registration forms submitted by ACORN. 252,595 voter registrations were submitted in Philadelphia. Remarkably, 57,435 were rejected — most of them submitted by ACORN.
Wisconsin — In Milwaukee ACORN improperly used felons as registration workers. Additionally, its workers are among 49 cases of bad registrations sent to authorities for possible charges, as first reported by the Journal Sentinel.
Florida — The Pinellas County Elections supervisor says his office has received around 35 voter registrations that appear to be bogus. There is also a question of 30,000 felons who are registered illegally to vote. Their connections with ACORN are not yet clear.
Texas — Of the 30,000 registration cards ACORN turned in, Harris County tax assessor Paul Bettencourt says just more than 20,000 are valid. And just look at some of the places ACORN was finding those voters. A church just next door is the address for around 150 people. More than 250 people claim a homeless outreach center as their home address. Some listed a county mental health facility as their home and one person even wrote down the Harris County jail at the sheriff’s office.
Michigan — ACORN in Detroit is being investigated after several municipal clerks reported fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications coming through. The clerk interviewed said the fraud appears to be widespread.
New Mexico – The Bernalillo County clerk has notified prosecutors that some 1,100 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by ACORN.
CLEVELAND — A national organization that conducts voter registration drives for low-income people has curtailed its push in Cuyahoga County after the Board of Elections accused its workers of submitting fraudulent registration cards.
The board is investigating the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Results of the inquiry could be turned over to the county prosecutor.
Board employees said ACORN workers often handed in the same name on a number of voter registration cards, but showing that person living at different addresses. Other times, cards had the same name listed, but a different date of birth. Still another sign of possible fraud showed a number of people living at an address that turned out to be a restaurant.
ACORN is currently under investigation for fraudulent voter registration and related activities in at least 11 key battleground states.
Election officials in several states have said that 50 percent of ACORN voter registrations are fictitious.
Just last week, for example, ACORN’s offices in Nevada were raided by state law enforcement officials after reports that ACORN had registered the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas.
In Connecticut, a 7-year-old girl was found to have been registered to vote by ACORN, which changed her age to 27.
Local News: Drug Raid turns up ACORN worker and 7 voter registration forms
The FBI is investigating its voter registration efforts in several states, amid allegations that almost a third of the 1.3 million cards it turned in are invalid. And yesterday, a former employee of Acorn testified in a Pennsylvania state court that the group’s quality-control efforts were “minimal or nonexistent” and largely window dressing. Anita MonCrief also says that Acorn was given lists of potential donors by several Democratic presidential campaigns, including that of Barack Obama, to troll for contributions.
The Obama campaign denies it “has any ties” to Acorn, but Mr. Obama’s ties are extensive. In 1992 he headed a registration effort for Project Vote, an Acorn partner at the time. He did so well that he was made a top trainer for Acorn’s Chicago conferences. In 1995, he represented Acorn in a key case upholding the constitutionality of the new Motor Voter Act — the first law passed by the Clinton administration — which created the mandated, nationwide postcard voter registration system that Acorn workers are using to flood election offices with bogus registrations.
Ms. MonCrief testified that in November 2007 Project Vote development director Karyn Gillette told her she had direct contact with the Obama campaign and had obtained their donor lists. Ms. MonCrief also testified she was given a spreadsheet to use in cultivating Obama donors who had maxed out on donations to the candidate, but who could contribute to voter registration efforts. Project Vote calls the allegation “absolutely false.”
She says that when she had trouble with what appeared to be duplicate names on the list, Ms. Gillette told her she would talk with the Obama campaign and get a better version. Ms. MonCrief has given me copies of the donor lists she says were obtained from other Democratic campaigns, as well as the 2004 DNC donor lists.
In her testimony, Ms. MonCrief says she was upset by Acorn’s “Muscle for Money” program, which she said intimidated businesses Acorn opposed into paying “protection” money in the form of grants. Acorn’s Brian Kettering says the group only wants to change corporate behavior: “Acorn is proud of its corporate campaigns to stop abuses of working families.”
Ms. MonCrief, 29, never expected to testify in a case brought by the state’s Republican Party seeking the local Acorn affiliate’s voter registration lists. An idealistic graduate of the University of Alabama, she joined Project Vote in 2005 because she thought it was empowering poor people. A strategic consultant for Acorn and a development associate with its Project Vote voter registration affiliate, Ms. MonCrief sat in on policy-making meetings with the national staff. She was fired early this year over personal expenses she had put on the group’s credit card.
She says she became disillusioned because she saw that Acorn was run as the personal fiefdom of Wade Rathke, who founded the group in 1970 and ran it until he stepped down to take over its international operations this summer. Mr. Rathke’s departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he’d employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn’s board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago. (The embezzlement was confirmed to me by an Acorn official.)
“Anyone who questioned what was going on was viewed as the enemy,” Ms. MonCrief told me. “Just like the mob, no one leaves Acorn happily.”
“There’s no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances,” says Nate Toler, who worked until 2006 as the head organizer of an Acorn campaign against Wal-Mart in California. And Ms. MonCrief says it is longstanding practice to blame bogus registrations on lower-level employees who then often face criminal charges, a practice she says Acorn internally calls “throwing folks under the bus.”
Gregory Hall, a former Acorn employee, says he was told on his very first day in 2006 to engage in deceptive fund-raising tactics. Mr. Hall has founded a group called Speaking Truth to Power to push for a full airing of Acorn’s problems “so the group can heal itself from within.”
Human Events: “ACORN Whistleblowers Produce Shocking Testimony on Capitol Hill” 03/23/2009
Late last week, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, called for a hearing to investigate ACORN. You read that right. At a Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties subcommittee hearing entitled “Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election” last Thursday, witness testimony not only drew Conyers to the subcommittee hearing but events led to Conyers strongly urging that subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) conduct a full hearing on ACORN, calling allegations made at the hearing “serious.”
Testimony also revealed ACORN’s unofficial “Muscle for the Money” program directed at fundraising from corporations. Allegations were made of payments from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to ACORN’s D.C office to harass The Carlyle Group and specifically David Rubenstein, a founder of the company. Even though ACORN D.C. had no interest in The Carlyle Group, they were allegedly paid by SEIU to go break up a banquet and protest at Rubenstein’s house.
It was called “Muscle for the Money” because they would go “intimidate people and protest.” Targets of the protests included Sherwin-Williams, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and Money Mart among others, testimony revealed. The apparent purpose was to get money from the targeted entities for ACORN.
Perhaps the most controversial accusation revealed by whistleblower testimony was the scheme by which ACORN and Project Vote are paid by foundations per voter registered and the submission of copies of actual voter registration cards to the foundations, which is a violation of federal law.
I spoke with whistleblower Anita MonCrief at the hearing. “ACORN itself is sometimes paid by foundations per registration and, in some case,s they would send copies of the voter registration cards straight to the funder,” MonCrief said. “Workers are improperly trained. … They are trained to never ask, ‘Are you registered to vote?’ because if the person says ‘Yes,’ they have to move on. They ask, ‘Did you vote in the last election,’ and if the person says ‘No,’ they register them again. This is how they duplicate registrations and flood the offices.”
Given the political situation the country is currently facing today, the American Conservative Union puts forth the questions of what are we [America] going to be facing this fall, and further, what role will ACORN play?
ACORN is a community organizing group which was found to have forged thousands of voter registration cards in dozens of states. Former employees of ACORN claimed that almost half of their company’s registrations were fraudulent, and their forged submissions in the previous Presidential election add up to nearly 600,000.
Whistleblower Anita Moncrief on Fox
Heres some witness/accomplice testimony reports
The ACORN fell from a poisinous Socialist tree and grew into one of it’s own. Obama had no problem associating with them, working for them, training them, and using their fraud to get elected.
Attempting to Naturalize as many new Americans as possible for votes is nothing new to the Democratic Party. Though it looks like the Obama Administration may conduct this goal through a blanket amnesty, the Clinton Administration tried to create more Democrats a different way, by taking advantage of a program called Citizenship USA.
Heres a little background. In 1995 the INS decided it was overwhelmed with a backlog of Citizenship applicants and decided to form an program called Citizenship USA to speed the process up from a 3 year wait, to a 6 month wait. Meaning an applicant could become an American Citizen within 6 months of turning in paperwork. The Clinton White House sought to take advantage of this program and to turn these new American Citizens into instant Democrat Voters.
As detailed throughout this report, naturalization processing before CUSA already suffered from systemic weaknesses. INS lacked standards for the consistent evaluation of an applicant’s “good moral character” and other qualifications for citizenship. INS had become reliant on the use of temporary files, thus preventing adjudicators from learning as much as possible about an applicant’s background, including information concerning possible grounds for disqualification. Applicant criminal history checks were poorly administered.
Adjudicators were trained and instructed to concentrate primarily on the minimal statutory criteria. In addition, their inquiries were limited by the frequent unavailability of the crucial tools of naturalization processing: applicant criminal history checks and permanent files. The procedures on which INS relied to make these tools available to adjudicators, clerical and automated processes, experienced even greater strain as production expectations increased. As a result of all these factors, naturalization processing integrity was compromised during CUSA.
We found that INS was willing to take these risks primarily because the agency had long tolerated a degree of error in its processes. As we described earlier in this report, INS managed the fingerprint check according to an analysis that balanced flaws in the system against the resources required to redress them, and thereby accepted a certain level of error. In view of the use of this approach in administering one of the most significant checks in the naturalization system—the check against the possibility of bestowing citizenship on someone with a disqualifying criminal record—it was no surprise that a similarly tolerant perspective informed INS’ remaining safeguards, particularly when the rate of processing was increased.
Thus, implicit in the idea of backlog reduction was a general acceptance of the status quo in naturalization processing. We found that it was not an ignorance of the problems so much as an acceptance of them. As Commissioner Meissner told the OIG when discussing why INS moved forward with its plans for CUSA knowing of the problems that then existed in making applicants’ permanent files available to naturalization adjudicators, “the assumption was this: . . . we have been doing it this way for years and years and years, and things need to improve. But they are not going to—you know, we are not going to create an entirely new system in a flash, and so we will do the best we can with what we have.”
Furthermore, before the implementation of CUSA those vulnerabilities had not been the subject of widespread public outcry, and thus there was no outside stimulus for INS to mend its ways. What was of immediate concern to the public and to Congress were the unconscionable delays in processing naturalization applications, and it was on those delays that INS singlemindedly focused its attention.
We’re hearing similar arguments today about a legal immigration process that takes too long, is too cumbersome and is unmanageable.
However, of greatest concern is the fact that INS has not made progress toward developing and implementing adjudicative standards, including the standards for English testing and the evaluation of good moral character. INS recognized before CUSA that such standards were missing and that their absence diminished the quality of naturalization processing during CUSA.
Obviously the program was designed to do nothing but quickly Naturalize Americans. Any flaws already in the INS process were escalated by the need to process individuals within the time frame of the program. Now lets look into the Clinton White House’s involvement and the drive for new Democrats.
From the Report’s section on White House/NPR (National Performance Review program under direct supervision of Vice President Al Gore) Involvement in the CUSA Program:
Two distinct themes emerge from the allegations raised by members of Congress with respect to the CUSA initiative. First, that the quality of naturalization adjudications was compromised during CUSA. Second, that these compromises resulted from political pressures engineered by the White House. Previous chapters in this report have addressed the first issue; in this chapter, we examine allegations concerning White House pressure on INS and its CUSA program.
As we discuss in earlier sections of this report, our investigation found that the poorly managed CUSA program was initiated by INS (without White House input) as a legitimate response to a growing backlog of naturalization applications. White House officials became involved in CUSA in early 1996— before INS had made significant inroads into its naturalization backlog—by making the program a target of aggressive “reinvention” efforts by the National Performance Review (NPR).2 During an approximately 6-week period in
March and April 1996, NPR officials visited the INS Key City Districts and attempted to shake up INS bureaucracy by suggesting changes to INS’ hiring procedures.
We found that this White House/NPR interest in CUSA added to the significant pressure that already existed on INS to meet the ambitious backlog reduction and case processing goals it had set for itself and publicized widely. INS’ single-minded focus on processing cases to meet these goals, in turn, led to a series of mistakes, shortcuts, and mismanagement that adversely affected the quality of naturalizations conducted during the CUSA program as discussed throughout this report.
As part of our investigation, we examined the reasons for the White House/NPR involvement in CUSA. We found evidence that White House officials were interested in INS’ naturalization program for a variety of reasons, including “political” reasons that related to the November 1996 election, but from the evidence available we did not find that those interests resulted in any improper actions. We describe both the evidence that we found that relates to the reasons for the White House and NPR involvement in CUSA as well as White House officials’ explanations for their actions.
Although he says he found nothing improper, I’ll let you decide. First their findings:
One of the most pointed criticisms of the CUSA program made by Members of Congress was that the White House created or influenced CUSA in order to increase the number of Democratic voters. The White House strongly denied this allegation, arguing that its involvement in CUSA was motivated by a desire to assist INS to deliver on promises it made to individuals who were entitled to better services. As part of this investigation, we identified events and communications that pertain to the allegation, and we set them forth here because of the seriousness of the charge and the interest in the question. Given our finding that the involvement of the White House had little direct negative impact on CUSA, the propriety of the motivations behind this involvement is a political question beyond the scope of the OIG’s inquiry.
To what extent, if any, did this heightened White House involvement reflect a desire to increase the Democratic turnout at the 1996 general election? Certainly the possibility that White House involvement in CUSA could be perceived as improper occurred to many people, including Commissioner Meissner, who recalled having voiced her concerns to (Rahm)Emanuel and to both Attorney General Reno and Deputy Attorney General Gorelick.
We found several pieces of evidence showing that the White House was aware of and interested in the connection between naturalization, voting, and the 1996 election. The evidence includes:
· The September 26, 1995, memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Gorelick, drafted by Gerri Ratliff, to Kevin O’Keefe at the White House. The memorandum discussed INS naturalization initiatives and included a page entitled “Talking Points Re Voter Registration” that discussed INS’ limited role in facilitating voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. The memorandum noted that due to INS’ limited resources, it would have to rely on partnerships with other organizations to expand voter registration opportunities.
· A 1-page cover letter dated September 28, 1995, from O’Keefe to Ickes forwarding Ratliff’s memorandum. The cover letter included two paragraphs on voter registration, including the statement that “the pace of naturalization will limit the number of new voters.”
· Statements that INS employees in New York said Lyons made specifically referencing the November 1996 election.
· Farbrother’s March 28, 1996, e-mail to the Vice President noting that INS was not going to be able to “produce a million new citizens before election day.”
· Kamarck’s April 4, 1996, memorandum to the Vice President stating that “[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters.”
We also found evidence that more specifically refers to, or could be interpreted as referring to, the potential benefit to the Democratic Party of naturalizing a million new citizens in FY 1996.
· The March 13, 1996, O’Keefe memorandum to Ickes discussing that Skinny Sheahan, “our best field organizer,” was trying to figure out how to handle voter registration at a large naturalization ceremony in Chicago.
· A conversation between Farbrother and Kamarck in which, according to Farbrother, Kamarck spoke of the President’s desire to involve NPR because of his belief that the large number of people in California waiting for naturalization represented likely votes for him in the 1996 election.
· The memorandum written for Ickes by Stephen Warnath of the DPC expressing the Hispanic Caucus’ prospective view that “faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election.”
· The letters written by Daniel Solis and Father Vega to various White House officials that included comments about how enhanced naturalization efforts could increase the number of potential Democratic voters in the 1996 election.
The timeline of events within the report exposes quite alot of evidence as well, here is one excerpt:
Daniel Solis, head of United Neighborhood Organization (UNO) in Chicago,7 told the OIG that he attended a September 1994 Democratic Party fundraiser in Chicago and was seated near the President at the dinner afterwards. In the course of an approximately 10-minute conversation about naturalization, Solis said he told President Clinton that there were approximately 5.5 million potential new citizens in the United States. Solis told the OIG that the President commented that there should be an effort to register these people to vote, to which Solis responded that they had to be naturalized before they could vote. Solis said that he told the President that research showed that newly naturalized citizens tended to vote at a higher rate than other citizens and also tended to vote for incumbents. Solis said President Clinton asked him to send information about this issue to Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, who was also attending the Chicago event.
The report also greatly details Rahm Emanuel’s involvement in the program and dismay at his refusal to answer the IG’s inquiry:
Whether Emanuel’s interest was real and reflected political acumen or merely politeness is a question that his refusal to be interviewed has made more difficult to answer.
Now for some statements from outside the investigation. WorldNetDaily Reports:
A former INS official who attended meetings with Rahm Emanuel when Emanuel was a White House aide says the hard-charging Democrat relaxed rules to naturalize even criminal immigrants and secure their votes for President Clinton ahead of the 1996 presidential election.
Emanuel coordinated with Hispanic community organizers in Chicago to rubberstamp immigrants for citizenship, the INS official said in an exclusive interview with WND.
It turns out the long-time Chicago political operative was the behind-the-scenes catalyst for Citizenship USA, a project run out of then-Vice President Al Gore’s office.
“Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program,” said the official, who helped direct INS security policy. “He was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS.”
Emanuel, now caught up in the corruption scandal involving Democrat Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, refused to cooperate with an investigation into the citizenship project by the Justice Department Inspector General.
“He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone,” regardless of their criminal background, said the official, who’s still employed by the federal government and requested anonymity to avoid reprisals.
“They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there,” he added.
At one Chicago ceremony held inside Soldier Field, some 11,000 new citizens were sworn in.
Another former INS official, William Carroll, said Emanuel “took midnight trips to INS headquarters to meet with (Commissioner) Doris Meissner about Citizenship USA.”
He said that in March 1996 he and other INS district directors were given “marching orders” by headquarters to push through as many new citizens as possible ahead of the election, even if no criminal and national security background checks were completed.
INS deportation officer Tom Conklin said that he and other agents were pressured to rubberstamp immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”
According to a November 1993 interview with Mother Jones magazine, Emanuel began pushing Clinton to be proactive on the issue of immigration right after he took office, and years ahead of the 1996 re-election campaign.
“I just wanted to be ahead of this issue and have our staff on it, defining it constantly,” Emanuel said, eyeing Texas and California, two key states in 1996 where immigration was a hot issue.
If Democrats can be this dirty on Immigration, is a blanket amnesty in order to get Democrat Votes that much of a stretch. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had a direct involvement in this travesty of justice, and I’m sure, he has no problem trying it again.
Here is Obama’s speech on Immigration Reform
“The politics of who is and who is not allowed to enter this country, and on what terms, has always been contentious, and that remains true today. And it’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.”
“In fact because we don’t do a very good job of tracking who comes in and out of the country as visitors large numbers avoid Immigration Law simply by overstaying their visas. The result is an estimated 11 million Undocumented Immigrants in the United States.”
“More fundamentally the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are going through the process legally.”
“For example there are those in the Immigrants Rights Community who have argued, passionately, that we should simply provide those who are illegally with legal status or, at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until, we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms, Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living? I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”
“The 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable. Now if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know its not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation. Because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric.”
“Finally we have to demand responsibility from people living here illegally. They must be required to admit that they broke the law, they should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English. They must get right with the law before they can get in line and earn their citizenship.”
“We can create a pathway for legal status that is fair, reflective of our values, and works.”
Obama has no intention of deporting the illegal immigrants, and his administrations policy on ICE’s Silent raids confirms this. Instead of rounding up and deporting the illegal immigrants working at different businesses, the illegals are instead fired by their employer and left with either welfare or crime to sustain themselves.
SUBJECT: Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform
This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United Slates without authorization. It includes recommendations regarding implementation timeframes and required resources.
You already have the Obama Administration looking for ways to change regulations in order to keep Illegal Immigrants in the United States if Congress does not tackle Immigration Reform, you have ICE’s Silent Raids forcing illegal immigrants out of a job but not deportating them. And you have Rahm Emanuel as the White House Chief of Staff and his philosophy of “Never waste a crisis.” Amnesty is quite possible and so is a Democrat voter drive: is immigration another crisis that we must not waste?
Time to look at the White House staff to get a clearer picture of what’s behind the policies of this administration. First up, White House Chief of Staff Rahm “deadfish” Emanuel. We will get into the deadfish later. First here’s the WhiteHouse.Gov bio:
Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. Prior to joining President Barack H. Obama’s administration, Emanuel served in the House of Representatives, representing the fifth district of Illinois, and was Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. As an advocate for Chicago’s working families, Emanuel served on the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees taxes, trade, Social Security, and Medicare issues.
Appointed by then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel served as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 cycle. Under his leadership, Democrats gained 30 seats in the House without losing a single incumbent, and ushered in a new Democratic majority for the first time in more than a decade.
In January 2007, the new majority elected Emanuel to serve as Democratic Caucus Chair, the fourth-highest-ranking member of the House Democratic Leadership. As Chair, Emanuel led the Democratic Caucus in fulfilling its campaign promise to pass legislation reflecting the values and priorities of the American people.
Before being elected to Congress, Emanuel worked at the Chicago investment bank Wasserstein Perella. He was a core member of the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1998, starting as the national finance director for the 1992 campaign and eventually becoming Senior Adviser to the President for Policy and Strategy. In 1989, Emanuel was a senior adviser and chief fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley’s campaign. He also played an important role in Paul Simon’s 1984 campaign for the Senate.
Emanuel graduated from Sarah Lawrence College in 1981 and received a Master’s Degree in Speech and Communication from Northwestern University in 1985. He and his wife, Amy Rule, have three children, Zach, Ilana, and Leah.
Oh my, Why he’s a Paragon of Democratic Party Knighthood. Yea ok, lets look deeper. From Discover The Networks:
Emanuel’s interest in politics began when, as a college undergraduate, he worked on the congressional campaign of Chicago Democrat David Robinson. He proceeded thereafter to work as a fundraiser for a number of successful Illinois candidates before being drafted by the presidential campaign of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton in 1991.
Emanuel proved to be a shrewd tactician for Clinton, urging the latter, during the 1992 New Hampshire primary race, to focus more on fundraising efforts than on campaigning. The money Clinton collected would enable him to run an effective ad campaign aimed at countering the emerging controversies about the candidate’s past adulterous relationships and his draft-dodging activities during the Vietnam War.
Emanuel’s aptitude for fundraising continued to help the Clinton campaign throughout the primaries and into the general election. Of notable importance was Emanuel’s ability to connect with Jewish donors, who contributed heavily to Clinton’s then-unprecedented $72 million war chest. According to political consultant Steve Rabinowitz, “[Emanuel] schmoozed many, many millions all over the country, including money from traditional Democratic Party givers, who are disproportionately Jewish, and new Democratic givers.”
On November 4, 1992 — the night after Clinton had been elected President — Emanuel and other campaign aids convened for a celebratory dinner. At one point in the evening, the discussion turned to the topic of certain individuals who, in the estimation of Emanuel and his cohorts, had somehow betrayed the Clinton cause. One such person was Nathan Landow, a fundraiser who had backed the candidacy of Clinton’s Democrat rival Paul Tsongas. Another was William Donald Schaefer, the Democrat governor of Maryland who had endorsed Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush. In a fit of anger, Emanuel, wielding a steak knife, stood up amidst his dinner companions and proceeded to stab the table repeatedly, screaming: “Nat Landow! Dead!… Bill Schaefer! Dead!…”
During Clinton’s first five years in the White House, Emanuel continued to serve as an aid to the President. Perhaps his most high-profile assignment was as choreographer of the 1993 Rose Garden ceremony following the Oslo Accord, an event that featured the famous handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat.
Shortly after Clinton’s electoral victory in 1992, Emanuel began pushing the new President to exploit the issue of immigration for his political advantage. Heeding Emanuel’s advice, in September 1994 Clinton met with Daniel Solis, president of the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization (UNO), a Hispanic advocacy group. Solis told Clinton that if he could somehow swiftly naturalize the ever-growing number of non-citizen immigrants residing in the U.S., he would have a “great opportunity” to increase the pool of potential voters who might support his re-election bid in 1996. Clinton instructed Solis to stay in contact with Emanuel on this matter; Solis and Emanuel soon coordinated a scheme — which was titled “Citizenship USA” and was headquartered in Vice President Al Gore’s office — to fast-track the naturalization process for both legal and illegal immigrants before the 1996 election. According to one INS security official:
“The goal was to speed up the process and turn as many legal residents and illegals into Clinton voters as possible…. Rahm was doing it under the guise of Al Gore’s Reinventing Government program. He [Emanuel] was definitely the point man and was past his neck in the scandal at INS…. He got every rule changed in the hiring of adjudicators so they could naturalize more Mexican nationals to vote for Bill Clinton, not to mention getting the rules changed to naturalize anyone [regardless of their immigration status or criminal history]…. They had immigration ceremonies at stadiums with DNC (Democratic National Committee) staff registering them as voters right there.”
At one Chicago ceremony held inside the Soldier Field football stadium, approximately 11,000 new citizens were sworn in en masse.
A former INS district director, William Carroll, stated that in March 1996 he and his colleagues had been given “marching orders” to naturalize as many new citizens as possible in advance of the November election, even in the absence of criminal and national security background checks of the applicants.
INS deportation officer Tom Conklin concurred that he and other agents had been pressured to approve the citizenship applications of immigrants “with two or three arrests for crimes like burglary.”
Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine subsequently conducted an investigation of Emanuel’s role in the citizenship scheme. Fine concluded that “the INS had compromised the integrity of naturalization adjudications as a result of its efforts to process applicants more quickly and meet a self-imposed goal of completing more than a million cases by the end of fiscal year 1996.” According to Fine, the Clinton administration had followed “inadequate procedures for checking criminal histories and fingerprints.” Fine added that Emanuel had refused his request for an interview.
In 1998 Emanuel left his advisory position at the White House to work as an investment banker at the firm of Wasserstein Perella, where he earned $16.2 million during a two-and-a-half-year stint.
In 2000 Emanuel was again called upon by Bill Clinton, this time to serve on the Board of Directors for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). During his tenure on the Board, Freddie Mac was plagued by such major scandals as accounting fraud and illegal campaign contributions to congressional candidates. Emanuel resigned from the Board in 2001.
In 2002 Emanuel ran for public office and was elected as the Democrat Representative for Illinois’ 5th congressional district, easily defeating Republican opponent Mark Augusti.
In January 2005 Emanuel was named Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the 2006 election season. Such was his success in engineering important victories for the Democratic Party in that year’s mid-term elections, that Illinois Republican Representative Ray LaHood said of Emanuel: “He legitimately can be called the golden boy of the Democratic Party today. He recruited the right candidates, found the money and funded them, and provided issues for them.”
Emanuel’s strategy in 2006 was to focus not only on fundraising, but also on an aggressive propaganda campaign deriding Republicans for such transgressions as their mismanagement of the Iraq War, their allegedly inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, and their scandals involving figures like Mark Foley, Tom DeLay, and Jack Abramoff. Most notably, Emanuel recruited numerous moderate and conservative Democrat candidates — a number of whom were military veterans — to run for election in Southern and Midwestern districts where doctrinaire leftists would have stood little chance of winning.
As a result of the foregoing strategies, Democrats in 2006 gained 30 congressional seats, there by seizing control of the House of Representatives and setting the stage for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House.
Emanuel was elected Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, making him the fourth highest ranking member of the Democratic leadership in the House.
Emanuel went on to become a close advisor to Senator Barack Obama, particularly during the latter’s run for the White House in 2008. On November 6, 2008, President-elect Obama named Emanuel to serve as his White House Chief of Staff.
Shortly before Obama’s November 4, 2008 election victory, Emanuel had conversations with Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s Chief of Staff John Harris about who would fill Obama’s vacant Senate seat if Obama were to win the presidency. According to one source, Emanuel gave Harris a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama. The names on the list included Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois—all Democrats. Sometime shortly after the election, Emanuel telephoned John Harris to add the name of Democratic Attorney General Lisa Madigan to the approved list.
In December 2008 it was revealed that Blagojevich, who was authorized by Illinois law to name a successor to Obama, had been secretly taped telling political confidantes that he was aiming to sell the Senate seat in exchange for campaign cash, a lucrative job, an ambassadorship, or a Cabinet post. After these charges against Blagojevich became public, Emanuel refused to respond to reporters’ questions about any involvement he may have had with the governor’s office over the Senate pick.
In December 2008 it was reported that Emanuel, cognizant of the fact that the economic recession in which America was mired presented an opportunity for the Democratic Party to enact sweeping legislation under the guise of an economic recovery plan, had said the following in a candid moment: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste — and what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
In February 2009 it was learned that Emanuel had lived rent-free for years in the Capitol Hill townhouse of Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro — and that he had failed to make mention of that fact on any of his financial-disclosure forms, as congressional ethics rules require for such arrangements (which are classified by the IRS as gifts that are subject to taxes).
Following is an overview of Emanuel’s congressional voting record from 2003 through 2008, as per key pieces of legislation covering a wide array of issues.
In February 2004 Emanuel voted against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which proposed to make it an added criminal offense for someone to injure or kill a fetus while carrying out a crime against a pregnant woman.
In April 2005 and September 2006, Emanuel voted against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, whose purpose was to prohibit the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without a parent’s (or a legal guardian’s) consent.
In December 2006 Emanuel voted against the Abortion Pain Bill, which mandated that abortion providers, prior to performing an abortion on a fetus older than 20 weeks, inform the mother that: (a) the fetus might feel pain during the procedure, and (b) the use of some pain-reducing drugs may have health risks associated with them.
As a result of his unwavering support for the unrestricted right to abortion-on-demand under any and all circumstances, Emanuel has consistently received ratings of 100 percent from NARAL and Planned Parenthood. These ratings indicate that Emanuel’s votes and stated positions on abortion-related matters have mirrored, literally without exception, the positions of these organizations. Indeed, since at least 1995 Emanuel has supported the agendas of Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time.
In September 2004 Emanuel voted against a bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. In July 2006 he voted against a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage in America exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.
TaxesIn May 2003 Emanuel voted against a $350 billion tax cut. This bill contained, among other things, a provision to eliminate the so-called “marriage tax penalty” by making the standard deduction for married couples twice that of a single filer.
In May 2004 he voted against a proposal to extend the alternative minimum tax relief that had been available in 2003 and 2004.
Also in May 2004, he voted against a proposal to make the $1,000-per-child tax credit permanent rather than letting it decline to $700 in 2005. Four months later he voted against another bill calling for a five-year extension on the $1,000 child tax credit.
In October 2004 he voted against a ten-year, $145 billion tax cut for domestic manufacturers and small corporations.
In April 2005 he voted against a proposal to permanently repeal the estate tax.
In November 2005 he voted against a bill calling for a $49.91 billion reduction in federal spending over a five-year period. Twelve months later he voted against a similar five-year proposal for $56.1 billion in federal spending reductions; that bill also called for the retention of a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends.
In May 2006 he voted against $69.96 billion in tax cuts and credits through 2010, including reductions of 15 percent on capital gains taxes and 5 percent on dividends taxes.
In June 2006 he voted against a proposal to reduce estate taxes beginning in 2010; that proposal would have set the new rates at 15 percent for estates worth up to $25 million, and 30 percent for estates valued at more than $25 million.
The most notable exception to Emanuel’s generally doctrinaire espousal of high taxation occurred in January 2008, when he voted in favor of a bill giving single taxpayers a tax credit of up to $600, and joint filers a tax credit of up to $1,200.
In May 2006 Emanuel voted against a proposal to provide funds for offshore oil exploration along the Outer Continental Shelf; instead, he favored a continuation of President Clinton’s 1998 moratorium on oil drilling.
MortgagesIn September 2007 Emanuel voted in favor of a bill calling on money lenders “to use risk-based pricing to more effectively reach underserved borrowers.” In other words, he was endorsing subprime loans to under-qualified borrowers—the very practice that eventually would lead to the cataclysmic collapse of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the mortgage industry.
Emanuel has received a 100 percent rating from ACORN, the political cult that for many years has played a major role in pressuring banks to make subprime loans.
Military CommissionsIn September 2006 Emanuel voted against a bill authorizing the President to establish military commissions to try enemy combatants captured in the war on terror. In Emanuel’s view, such tribunals trample on the civil rights and liberties of defendants who, he contends, should be entitled to all the rights and protections afforded by the American criminal court system—where the standards that govern the admissibility of evidence are considerably stricter than the counterpart standards in military tribunals.
Counter-Terrorism & Homeland Security
In July 2005 Emanuel voted in favor of reauthorizing the post-9/11 anti-terrorism measure known as the Patriot Act.
In September 2006 he voted against an amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978; this amendment called for allowing the government to use electronic surveillance to investigate suspected terrorist operatives.
In August 2007 he voted against a bill permitting the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to monitor foreign electronic communications which are routed through the United States—provided that the purpose of such monitoring was to obtain “foreign intelligence information” about suspected terrorists. In June 2008 he voted in favor of a bill specifically prohibiting this type of surveillance.
The Center for Security Policy, which is committed to “promoting international peace through American strength,” has given Emanuel ratings ranging, over the years, from 17 percent to 35 percent.
In June 2006 Emanuel voted against a resolution which stated that it was not in America’s national security interest to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, and that a better course of action would be to withdraw the troops only upon the “completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq.”
In February 2007 he voted to disapprove of President Bush’s decision to move ahead with the so-called troop “surge”—the deployment of some 21,500 additional U.S. soldiers in an effort to quell the violent insurgents in Iraq.
In May 2007 Emanuel voted in favor a proposal to expedite the transfer of all prisoners currently being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center, most of whom are, as Gordon Cucullu writes in The American Enterprise, “not innocent foot soldiers” but rather “Islamic fundamentalists from across the Middle East, rabid jihadists who have dedicated their lives to the destruction of America and Western civilization.”
That same month, Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days.
In July 2007 he voted to begin dramatically reducing the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq by April 1, 2008.
In June 2008 he voted in favor of exploring the possibility of impeaching President Bush on grounds that he had lied about U.S. intelligence on Iraq so as to justify the March 2003 American invasion.
Heres Rahm Emanuel advocating for negotiations with Iran with Bill Maher
In May 2004 Emmanuel voted “No” on requiring hospitals to report (to the federal government) illegal aliens who receive emergency medical treatment.
In February 2005 he voted against the Real ID Act, which proposed to: set minimal security requirements for state driver licenses and identification cards; require asylum applicants suspected of affiliating with terrorist groups to prove that they are indeed seeking to escape persecution in their homeland; and ensure that physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration would be expeditiously constructed where needed along the U.S.-Mexico border.
In December 2005 he voted against a bill calling for: the construction of some 700 miles of fencing along America’s southern border; the establishment of a system requiring business owners to verify the legal status of all their employees; the detention of any person attempting to enter the U.S. illegally after October 1, 2006; an increase in the penalties on anyone attempting to smuggle illegal aliens into the U.S.; the annual provision of $250 million to pay state and local police agencies for their assistance in enforcing federal immigration laws; and funding for a program to deport “removable criminal aliens” in prison following the completion of their sentences, rather than releasing them into American communities.
In June 2006 Emanuel voted in favor of an amendment prohibiting the U.S. government from tipping off Mexican officials as to the whereabouts of operatives working for the Minuteman Project, a nonviolent organization of American citizens who alert the U.S. Border Patrol to the presence of unauthorized border-crossers in the Southwestern states.
In September 2006 Emanuel again voted against a bill authorizing the construction of 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico.
That same month, he voted against a proposal to grant state and local officials the authority to investigate, identify, and arrest illegal immigrants.
The U.S. Border Control, which “is dedicated to ending illegal immigration by securing our nation’s borders and reforming our immigration policies,” gives Emanuel a rating of 8 percent.
In April 2003 and again in October 2005, Emanuel voted “No” on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers as punishment for violence that is committed with guns.
Already you can see much of Obama’s political stances and policies in agreement with Rahm Emanuel. The attack on Arizona’s SB1070 seems to be inviting Emanuels previous Immigrant scheme for Democratic voters. He served on the Board of Fannie/Freddie, who are conveniently exempt from Financial Reform and continue to ask for, and recieve, taxpayer funded bailouts. The voting record is also extremely similar.
Here is Rahm Emanuel talking about a mandatory service plan, something Obama also advocated for during his campaign.
So I’d say Rahm Emanuel is a hot headed radical. Tick him off, and if he’s not stabbing the table with a knife chanting your name and die, he just might mail you a decomposing fish. Regardless of your wishes, or your family needs, you will be forced to serve under a mandatory service plan. Illegal Immigrant? No Problem! Just vote Democrat. You can see why Obama has Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, they have similar views, and not one of those views is good for America or Freedom.
Today on twitter I asked the Ground Zero Mosque Organization, @Park51, a simple question. I did not recieve a simple answer.
StopObama2012: Do you condemn Hamas as a Terrorist Organization? Tweet
Park51: We don’t engage foreign politics. We’re working to build moderate Muslim communities BTW how’s stopping Obama going? ^_^ Tweet
As you can see thats a blantant attempt to tap dance away from the issue. Sorry, I don’t play softball on terrorism.
StopObama2012: I call yr answer a No, U wnt condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization. Therefor U have no business calling yourselves Moderate Tweet
StopObama2012: Stopping Obama is going just fine, thank you Tweet
I can be civil But my statement is true, if you won’t condemn terrorism or those that embrace it, you are not a moderate Muslim. But then denial gets worse.
Park51: Stop trying to drag us into int’l political debates. Happy to discuss American Muslim issues. Tweet
So asking if you will condemn terrorism and terrorist organizations is dragging people into political debates? Really? And is not Terrorism an American Muslim issue. Are there not American victims of terrorism in all faiths and creeds?
StopObama2012: I asked you a simple question, you refuse to answer. Your showing your true colors, your not moderate at all. Tweet
StopObama2012: As the Imam is currently touring the Middle East on the taxpayer dime, asking you about the MidEast & Hamas is relevant Tweet
Did I lie? Either you condemn terrorism, you don’t care, or support it. A “Moderate Muslim” would condemn it. And the Imam is indeed on a taxpayer funded tour courtesy of the State Department.
Roughly 2 hours later I recieved a reply
Park51: The State Dept thinks Imam Feisal is ok to speak on US issues. He’s an ambassador, it’s not his place to play politics. Tweet
I found this laughable and quickly took it apart.
StopObama2012: Does not an Ambassador play politics? Tweet
StopObama2012: And yet he has made political statements, like blaming the USA for 9/11 Tweet
Here’s the story.
“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened”
That’s well beyond criticism to me, and factually inaccurate.
Park51: Well Kissinger did. But I don’t think that’s the role of inter-country outreach. Tweet
StopObama2012: Oh and refusing to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, just like you Tweet
Because that also, is a political statement, or non-statement if you will.
StopObama2012: An Ambassador is a political position, your dancing in circles
Park51: I don’t think he blamed the USA, but he may have questioned historical policy decisions tweet
You saw the above video, you tell me. Ahh and then they get testy.
Park51: What is your point? We pick a moderate and he has to pass your grain of sand test? How fair is that? Who would you nominate? tweet
Lets see, he wants to see America more Sharia compliant, won’t condemn terrorist organizations, and hold’s American policies responsible for 9/11. Doesn’t sound very moderate to me.
StopObama2012: Ahh spin. The point is that neither he, nor you are moderate, or you would have sought a different location in the first place tweet
StopObama2012: And you would also condemn all terrorist organizations and acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam tweet
Ohh your really going to love the answer
Park51: So in your mind, it our place to issue blanket condemnations of any group you deem unworthy? #thatsfair Tweet
I was under the impression that not just I, but the State Department as well, had condemned them as a Terrorist Organization
Why yes, here they are in a State Department Report:
From December 27, 2008, through January 17, 2009, the IDF conducted a major military operation in Gaza. Israel and Hamas, a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organizationthat violently seized power in Gaza in June 2007, declared separate truces to end the fighting. Occasional small clashes continue to occur along the border.
How about that. Guess I just didn’t pick and choose, huh.
StopObama2012: Are terrorist Organizations worthy?? Hamas, Hezboallah? Are they worthy? Al-Shabab? Need more? tweet
StopObama2012: See, here’s your trap, you say you are a moderate in the religion of peace, yes? Yet you refuse to condemn those that act with violence in it’s name Tweet
There has yet to be a response. If I recieve one I will update this post. Suffice to say The organization behind the Ground Zero Mosque is not “Moderate.”
While not openly “Radical” They clearly will not take a stand against, or condemn radical behavoir. It really is a simple question. If you ask me if I condemn the KKK I would reply, “Hell Yea”, “Of course”, and “Everyday and twice on Sunday.” Yet they refuse to condemn known terrorist organizations.
There are many questions left unanswered by this organization, such as how can a man, that was a waiter in 2002, get 4.8 million dollars cash to pay for it in 2006?